Pellet Firing Victims Move Supreme Court Seeking Nationwide Ban on Metallic Pellet Guns Against Civilians
The debate over the use of pellet-firing weapons in civilian crowd control has reached the Supreme Court, where two individuals allegedly injured during the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest in New Delhi have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a nationwide ban on the use of wholly or partly metallic pellet-firing guns by law enforcement agencies. The petition argues that such weapons are indiscriminate, unconstitutional and incompatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The petition has been filed by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director and former Central Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad along with two alleged pellet injury victims, Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoor. The petitioners contend that metallic projectiles fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns cannot distinguish between violent and peaceful individuals in a crowd, making them unsuitable for use against civilian assemblies.
The plea arises from the July 20 protest in New Delhi, during which several demonstrators reported pellet injuries. An official General Diary entry that later surfaced reportedly recorded the firing of anti-riot gun rounds loaded with plastic pellets by Rapid Action Force personnel, prompting questions over the nature of the ammunition used and the circumstances under which it was deployed. The petitioners argue that the incident highlights the urgent need for judicial intervention to establish uniform standards governing crowd-control weapons across India.
Beyond seeking a prohibition on metallic pellet guns, the PIL requests the Supreme Court to direct the Union Government and law enforcement agencies to decommission such weapons for civilian crowd dispersal. It also seeks compensation for those allegedly injured, independent medical assessment of victims, preservation of evidence relating to the incident and the formulation of transparent, rights-based crowd-control protocols that rely on less harmful alternatives.
The petition argues that pellet-firing weapons, though often described as “less-lethal,” have repeatedly caused severe injuries, including permanent eye damage and facial trauma. It cites earlier experiences with pellet gun use in Jammu and Kashmir, where their deployment generated sustained legal, medical and human rights concerns. The petitioners submit that the indiscriminate spread of metallic pellets makes the weapons inherently incapable of ensuring proportionate use of force in civilian situations.
The case is expected to raise broader constitutional questions regarding the permissible limits of police force during public demonstrations. If the Supreme Court admits the petition, it may examine whether existing legal safeguards, standard operating procedures and accountability mechanisms adequately protect civilians while allowing authorities to maintain public order. The proceedings could also prompt a wider review of India’s crowd-control policies and the range of non-lethal equipment available to police and paramilitary forces.
The Union Government, Delhi Police, the Central Reserve Police Force and other concerned authorities are expected to present their responses once the matter is listed for hearing. The Court’s eventual decision could have significant implications for policing practices across the country, particularly in relation to protests, public assemblies and the use of force by security personnel.
