<p>The High Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of exemption from some of the provisions of the Arms Act to “every person of Coorg race and every Jamma tenure-holder in Coorg”.</p>.<p>A division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, dismissed the PIL filed by Capt. Chetan Y K, an ex-army officer. </p>.<p>The court said that the exemption under section 41 of the Arms Act satisfies the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The court also said that the exemption has existed since the pre-independence period and it has rightly been granted. The notification was issued in October 2019.</p>.<p>“The Kodava community, which is a marshal community, has been enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence and Jamma tenure holders are enjoying the exemption since pre-independence period. They have rightly been granted exemption for a period of ten years. Exemption granted is subject to certain terms and conditions. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the notification is upheld,” the bench said.</p>.<p>Senior counsel Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the Kodava Samaja, Bengaluru, contended that Kodavas are a casteless and a special community. He argued that the gun, Odikathi (a small broad bladed sword) and the Prechakathi (a type of dagger) are as much a part of the life of a Kodava as the Kirpan is for Sikhs.</p>.<p>The petitioner had contended that the very classification and use of the term ‘Coorg race’ promotes discrimination between the citizens of Coorg region on the ground of caste and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution.</p>.<p>He also claimed that it was never an exemption given on the basis of tradition and culture.</p>.<p>The present petition is the third round of litigation. The petitioner had been challenging the exemption provided by way of notification on July 6, 1963.</p>.<p>During the pendency of an earlier petition, the union ministry of home affairs stated that it had undertaken the exercise of reviewing the notification.</p>.<p>The fresh notification in October 2019 again provided exemption, except some specified categories of Schedule I to the Arms Rules 2016, till October 31, 2029. </p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
<p>The High Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of exemption from some of the provisions of the Arms Act to “every person of Coorg race and every Jamma tenure-holder in Coorg”.</p>.<p>A division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, dismissed the PIL filed by Capt. Chetan Y K, an ex-army officer. </p>.<p>The court said that the exemption under section 41 of the Arms Act satisfies the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The court also said that the exemption has existed since the pre-independence period and it has rightly been granted. The notification was issued in October 2019.</p>.<p>“The Kodava community, which is a marshal community, has been enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence and Jamma tenure holders are enjoying the exemption since pre-independence period. They have rightly been granted exemption for a period of ten years. Exemption granted is subject to certain terms and conditions. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the notification is upheld,” the bench said.</p>.<p>Senior counsel Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the Kodava Samaja, Bengaluru, contended that Kodavas are a casteless and a special community. He argued that the gun, Odikathi (a small broad bladed sword) and the Prechakathi (a type of dagger) are as much a part of the life of a Kodava as the Kirpan is for Sikhs.</p>.<p>The petitioner had contended that the very classification and use of the term ‘Coorg race’ promotes discrimination between the citizens of Coorg region on the ground of caste and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution.</p>.<p>He also claimed that it was never an exemption given on the basis of tradition and culture.</p>.<p>The present petition is the third round of litigation. The petitioner had been challenging the exemption provided by way of notification on July 6, 1963.</p>.<p>During the pendency of an earlier petition, the union ministry of home affairs stated that it had undertaken the exercise of reviewing the notification.</p>.<p>The fresh notification in October 2019 again provided exemption, except some specified categories of Schedule I to the Arms Rules 2016, till October 31, 2029. </p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>