A) Necessity for travel
Unconstitutional question. It is your fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution. You can even continuously keep traveling your entire life freely throughout the territory of India without any necessity or reason as a matter of right, on foot, on bicycle, or by any other legal means of travel. The question is putting unnecessary burden on citizens when our Constitution has already taken this burden, hence it is unnecessary and superfluous. It is already answered for all the citizens by our Constitution's Article 19(1)d. I quote the article below:
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens shall have the right—
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
b) valid reason for taking the arms with me
Again the question itself is neither reasonable nor constitutional. The "reason"(self defense from random violent crime) can happen anytime, any place without any prior warning. The question is expecting you to have a premonition that the "reason" will happen or not happen. This is clearly unreasonable expectation, hence clearly unreasonable question.
Also the question is putting unnecessary burden on citizens since RKBA is your fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution. Arms Act 1959 is a regulatory law. If the state passes a law to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution, it cannot put the burden on citizen to justify the exercise of that right for the simple reason that Constitution has already taken that burden by providing a guarantee. Hence the burden lies on state to justify the regulation of right. Since RKBA is a right guaranteed under Constitution, one of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 puts that burden not on the citizen, but on the state. The objective states that "weapons for SELF DEFENSE are available for ALL CITIZENS under licenses UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege". This objective cannot mean that it is putting a burden on ALL CITIZENS to provide a valid "reason" in order to have a license. Instead it means by the use of word UNLESS, that the state has been put under a burden to provide a valid "reason" for denying a license. This can be further ascertained from Arms Act 1959, CHAPTER III - PROVISIONS RELATING TO LICENCES
14. Refusal of licences:
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
To understand further the view in detail please refer
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785)
D)finally is there a threat so serious that i should carry my weapon with me?
The same question b) framed in a different language, hence the answer is same. It is not a question of a threat or a need but a matter of right. If government is trying to restrict/infringe your Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, the burden to justify the restriction/infringement lies on government.
Please note: Do not take this as a legal advice to not fill form vii and not obtain the required license. Though the unconstitutional questions/requirements/restrictions related to arms licensing etc. can be successfully contested in court, till that time form vii has to be filled and required license obtained, since it is under Arms Act 1959 & Arms Rules 1962, which fall under the realm of "laws in force".
