Supreme Court to Examine Protocol on Use of Pellet Guns for Crowd Control
The Supreme Court of India has indicated that it will closely examine the legal and operational protocol governing the use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies for crowd control, while hearing a batch of petitions arising out of the alleged use of pellet guns during the recent student protests at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. Although the Court declined to impose an immediate nationwide ban on pellet guns, it made it clear that the issue raises important constitutional and public law questions regarding the permissible limits of police force, proportionality in crowd-control measures, and the protection of fundamental rights. The proceedings are expected to shape future guidelines on the deployment of less-lethal weapons during civilian demonstrations.
The petitions were filed by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Jha Azad along with individuals who claimed to have sustained pellet injuries during the police action against protesters. The petitioners argued that metallic pellet guns are inherently dangerous because their projectiles disperse unpredictably and can cause permanent blindness, facial injuries, disability, and even life-threatening harm. They contended that such weapons are unsuitable for dispersing civilian assemblies and sought directions for decommissioning or banning their use, compensation for victims, rehabilitation, and the formulation of safer crowd-control protocols.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that a complete prohibition on pellet guns could not be ordered merely because allegations of misuse had been raised in a particular incident. The Bench noted that police authorities are legally empowered to use force in exceptional circumstances for maintaining public order and protecting lives and property. It questioned how pellet guns could be entirely prohibited when, in extreme situations, law enforcement officers are even authorized to use firearms. At the same time, the Court emphasized that the legality of using pellet guns depends upon the circumstances of each case and whether the force employed satisfies constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality.
Recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to preserve the Rapid Action Force’s ammunition logs and other records relating to the Jantar Mantar operation. The preservation of these records is intended to facilitate judicial scrutiny regarding whether pellet guns were deployed, who authorized their use, the quantity of ammunition issued, and whether the weapons were used in accordance with existing operational procedures. The Court’s direction reflects its determination to ensure transparency and accountability while examining the legality of the police response.
The Court also directed the Delhi Government to provide immediate medical treatment to protesters who allegedly suffered pellet injuries. The Bench observed that irrespective of the ultimate determination regarding the legality of pellet guns, injured persons must receive appropriate healthcare without delay. This direction reinforces the constitutional obligation of the State to safeguard life and health under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A central issue likely to be examined by the Supreme Court is whether the existing operational guidelines governing pellet guns adequately protect the rights of civilians. The Court is expected to consider whether current Standard Operating Procedures clearly specify the circumstances in which pellet guns may be used, the level of authority required for their deployment, the precautions necessary to minimize injuries, and the mechanisms available for post-incident accountability. These questions assume particular importance because pellet guns are categorized as “less-lethal” weapons but are capable of causing permanent physical damage when used improperly.
The proceedings have also highlighted conflicting versions regarding the events at Jantar Mantar. While the petitioners allege that pellet guns were fired against protesters, Delhi Police has publicly denied possessing or using pellet guns during the protest. At the same time, reports of an internal inquiry indicate that certain Rapid Action Force personnel had been issued pellet guns as part of the operational deployment, thereby making preservation of official records crucial to determining the factual position.
From a constitutional perspective, the case raises important questions concerning the balance between public order and civil liberties. The right to peaceful protest is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, while Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Any use of force by police authorities must therefore satisfy the constitutional principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. Courts have consistently held that force should be employed only when absolutely necessary and that the least harmful effective method should ordinarily be preferred.
The Supreme Court’s examination of the protocol governing pellet guns is therefore likely to extend beyond the facts of a single protest. The outcome may determine whether existing crowd-control guidelines require modification, whether additional safeguards should be introduced before deploying less-lethal weapons, and whether judicially enforceable standards should govern the future use of pellet guns by police and paramilitary forces across the country. Such a decision could significantly influence India’s legal framework on policing, public demonstrations, and the protection of constitutional rights while maintaining public order.
