Supreme Court Says Use of Pellet Guns in ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Is Part of Graded Police Response
In a significant observation on the powers of law enforcement agencies during public demonstrations, the Supreme Court of India has stated that the use of pellet guns in “exceptional circumstances” forms part of the graded response available to the police for maintaining law and order. The Court made the observation while hearing petitions seeking a nationwide ban on the use of metallic pellet guns for crowd control following allegations that Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel used such weapons against protesters during the recent Jantar Mantar demonstrations in New Delhi. While refusing to impose an immediate blanket prohibition, the Court emphasized that pellet guns are not ordinary crowd-control tools and can only be deployed in rare and exceptional situations as part of a carefully calibrated use-of-force framework.
The petitions were filed by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Jha Azad along with injured protesters who alleged that pellet guns caused serious injuries during the police action. The petitioners argued that pellet guns, despite being categorized as “less-lethal” weapons, discharge numerous metallic projectiles that can cause permanent blindness, severe facial injuries, internal organ damage, and lifelong disability. They sought a complete prohibition on their use against civilian protesters, compensation for victims, free medical treatment, and the formulation of safer alternatives for managing public assemblies.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court declined to accept the argument that pellet guns should be banned altogether. The Bench observed that policing operates through a graded response mechanism, under which officers employ progressively stronger measures depending upon the seriousness of the situation. It noted that while persuasion, warnings, barricading, and non-violent methods ordinarily constitute the first stages of crowd management, police authorities may, in exceptional circumstances involving grave threats to public safety or violence, be legally empowered to use more forceful measures. The Court remarked that if the law permits even the use of firearms in extreme situations, it would be difficult to hold that pellet guns could never be used under any circumstances.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that recognition of pellet guns as part of a graded response does not amount to unrestricted approval of their use. The legality of deploying such weapons depends upon whether the circumstances genuinely justified their use and whether the force employed was necessary, proportionate, and consistent with constitutional safeguards. The Court indicated that each incident involving pellet guns must be assessed on its own facts rather than through a blanket legal rule either permitting or prohibiting their deployment.
To facilitate judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to preserve the ammunition logs and deployment records of the Rapid Action Force relating to the Jantar Mantar operation. The Court considered these records essential for determining whether pellet guns were issued, who authorized their deployment, the quantity of ammunition used, and whether the force acted in accordance with established operational procedures. The preservation of documentary evidence is expected to assist the Court in evaluating the legality and proportionality of the police response during subsequent hearings.
The Court also directed the Delhi Government to ensure immediate medical treatment for protesters who allegedly sustained pellet injuries. Stressing the constitutional obligation of the State to protect life and health, the Bench observed that the issue of medical care stands independent of the legal debate concerning the permissibility of pellet guns. Injured persons, regardless of the outcome of the litigation, are entitled to receive appropriate treatment without delay.
The proceedings have unfolded against the backdrop of conflicting claims regarding the events at Jantar Mantar. While injured protesters maintain that pellet guns were used against them, Delhi Police has denied possessing or deploying pellet guns during the operation. However, reports indicate that the Central Reserve Police Force initiated an internal inquiry into the conduct of RAF personnel, and the Supreme Court’s direction to preserve ammunition records reflects the importance of independently verifying these competing versions.
The case raises significant constitutional questions concerning the balance between the State’s duty to maintain public order and citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Indian constitutional jurisprudence recognizes the right to peaceful protest while simultaneously permitting reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. Any use of force by law enforcement must therefore satisfy the constitutional tests of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. Even where force becomes unavoidable, authorities are expected to employ the least harmful effective means available.
The Supreme Court’s observations on the graded response doctrine indicate that it does not regard pellet guns as inherently unlawful but rather as weapons whose deployment must remain confined to exceptional circumstances where lesser measures prove inadequate. The Court is expected to continue examining the operational protocols governing pellet guns, the factual circumstances surrounding the Jantar Mantar protests, and whether additional judicial safeguards are required to regulate the future use of less-lethal weapons during civilian demonstrations. The outcome of the proceedings is likely to influence policing standards, accountability mechanisms, and crowd-control practices across India.
