Plea to Ban Pellet Guns: Supreme Court Asks Delhi Government to Ensure Treatment for Injured Protesters
In a significant hearing concerning the use of force during public demonstrations, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Delhi Government to ensure immediate and comprehensive medical treatment for protesters allegedly injured by pellet gun firing during the recent Jantar Mantar protests. While considering a Public Interest Litigation seeking a nationwide ban on the use of pellet guns for civilian crowd control, the Court declined to impose an immediate blanket prohibition but emphasized that the welfare and medical care of injured individuals could not be ignored. The order reflects the Court’s attempt to balance concerns relating to public order, police powers, and the constitutional rights of citizens.
The petition was filed by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Jha Azad along with two individuals who claimed to have suffered pellet injuries during the police action against protesters participating in the “Sansad Chalo” demonstration in New Delhi. The petitioners contended that pellet guns are inherently unsuitable for civilian crowd control because their projectiles can cause permanent blindness, severe injuries, and irreversible physical disability. They argued that the continued use of such weapons violates the constitutional guarantees of life, dignity, bodily integrity, and the right to peaceful assembly under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The plea sought a nationwide prohibition on the deployment of pellet guns against civilian assemblies, compensation for victims, free medical treatment, rehabilitation, and the formulation of safer crowd-control protocols.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court declined to grant an immediate blanket ban on pellet guns. The Bench observed that law enforcement authorities are, in exceptional situations, legally empowered to use force where circumstances demand it. The Court questioned whether a complete prohibition could be imposed merely because one particular weapon had allegedly been misused, noting that police personnel are sometimes required to deal with violent situations threatening public safety. At the same time, the Court made it clear that the legality and proportionality of the use of pellet guns must be carefully examined in every individual case.
Recognizing the immediate humanitarian concerns raised by the petition, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government to ensure that all protesters who sustained injuries during the incident receive appropriate medical treatment. The Court stressed that irrespective of the outcome of the legal challenge concerning pellet guns, the State bears a constitutional responsibility to provide timely healthcare to injured citizens. The direction reinforces the principle that access to medical treatment forms an essential component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also directed the Union Government to preserve the Rapid Action Force’s ammunition records relating to the protest. This includes maintaining ammunition logs and other relevant records that could establish whether pellet guns were deployed, in what quantity, and under whose authorization. Preservation of such evidence is intended to facilitate judicial scrutiny and ensure that no material relevant to the allegations is destroyed during the pendency of the proceedings.
The controversy has generated conflicting claims regarding the events that occurred during the protest. While several injured protesters and the petitioners allege that pellet guns were used by security personnel, Delhi Police has publicly denied possessing or using pellet guns during the protest, describing such allegations as misleading. Reports indicate that the Central Reserve Police Force has initiated an internal inquiry into the sequence of events and the role of the Rapid Action Force to determine the exact nature of the force employed during the crowd-control operation.
The constitutional issues involved extend beyond the use of a particular weapon. The petition raises broader questions concerning the permissible limits of force that may be employed by law enforcement while managing civilian demonstrations. Indian constitutional jurisprudence recognizes the right to peaceful protest as an important democratic freedom, while also acknowledging the State’s duty to maintain public order. Any restriction on fundamental rights or use of force by police authorities must therefore satisfy the constitutional tests of legality, necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. These principles require that force should be used only when absolutely necessary and that the least harmful means available should ordinarily be adopted.
Medical experts and human rights advocates have repeatedly expressed concern regarding pellet guns because of their potential to cause devastating injuries, particularly to the eyes, face, chest, and other vital organs. Reports following the recent protests describe cases involving serious ocular injuries and multiple pellet wounds requiring specialized medical treatment. Such concerns have strengthened demands for reconsidering the continued deployment of pellet guns in civilian law enforcement operations.
The Supreme Court’s interim observations indicate that the judiciary intends to closely examine both the factual circumstances surrounding the alleged use of pellet guns and the broader constitutional questions concerning crowd-control measures. By directing medical treatment for injured protesters while refusing an immediate nationwide ban, the Court has adopted a cautious approach that preserves executive discretion in exceptional situations but simultaneously insists upon accountability, preservation of evidence, and protection of the fundamental rights and welfare of those allegedly affected. The outcome of the case is likely to influence future standards governing police use of force and the regulation of less-lethal weapons during public demonstrations in India.
