No private arms to fight naxals

by Gulshan Kumar Ajmani in Daily Dose

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

14 years ago

Supreme court has ruled that state cannot issue private arms to fight naxals. It is job of government to provide safety to people. This task cannot be privatized.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1605307.ece

However, there is a question about peoples rights to self defence. Apparently, any citizen can demand or apply for arms licence for own safety but he has to buy the arms and state cannot provide these free nor encourage forming of private organized force.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this topic on other bookmarking websites.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

13 years ago

#127620

Since supreme court ruled against private army to fight Naxalals/ Maoists, tribals are getting death threats. The Maoists are emboldened.

It appears that even if private army to combat Maoists is not permissible, Government should equip villagers with licenced arms under normal rules without organizing private army. The police forces also need be strengthened.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Death-threats-to-disarmed-tribals/articleshow/9157287.cms

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

chinmoymukherjee

934 14.7k 122.3k

13 years ago

#127629

The Supreme Court's ruling has to be viewed from the legal merits of such attempts to arm private armies which are accountable to none! It's the sole and sacred constitutional duty of any state to ensure safety and security of any citizen and this can not be delegated to so-called private armies!!

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

13 years ago

#127647

Naxalites/ Maoists are operating in remote interior places where police cannot always reach. Personal defence is legal right of every citizen. So, the villagers can be given arms licenses for their personal defence. There is clear provision for such licenses in law. The villagers themselves should definitely be enabled to defend themselves. Such defence should not be considered as private army. .

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

chinmoymukherjee

934 14.7k 122.3k

13 years ago

#127659

I think what Supreme Court's ruling makes amply clear is the practice of arming any private group which does not enjoy legal sanction.What it has frowned upon is the existence of such outfits in Chattisgarh which the state government has denied but these groups exist!!

Isha

54 3.96k 34.2k

13 years ago

#127706

court is right .this is the duty of state or city government.

Manas Aditya

603 858 9.52k

13 years ago

#127712

Sometimes state role in helping to combat naxals is more prominence than of centre. It is better that state should have some powers on private arms to fight naxals.

mukesh ranjan

40 751 4.1k

13 years ago

#127899

It is great idea to equip the vulnerable villagers to equip with arms and train them properly in order to fight with them.They know the place from where the real threat emerges and hence can very well combat the dreaded situation.They are otherwise also in situation of kill or get killed.

Arise Awake and Rest Not till the Goal is Achieved.

chinmoymukherjee

934 14.7k 122.3k

13 years ago

#127928

Any measure which is taken within the four corners of rule of law is welcome but no extra-constitutional or extra-legal means should not be suggested!

You do not have permissions to reply to this topic.

Title	Category	Replies
What are the impacts of modern technology on family communication?	Discussions	0
Women should get to wear whatever they want!	General Discussions	0
Understanding What Education Is?	Discussions	0
Whose birthdate is a lucky ?	General Discussions	0
importance of skill	Topics of Interest	0

Forum Categories

Trending Topics