SC Inclined to Frame Pellet Gun Use Protocol
Top court asks petitioners to seek regulation instead of ban; orders preservation of RAF ammunition records
- Supreme Court suggests protocol for pellet gun use instead of outright ban.
- Centre directed to preserve RAF ammunition log from July 20 protest.
- Delhi government asked to ensure treatment for injured protesters.
- Petition alleges metallic pellets were fired during NEET protest at Jantar Mantar.
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 30th July: The Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that it was willing to examine the use of pellet guns for crowd control but suggested that a petition seeking a complete ban on metallic pellets be modified to instead seek a protocol governing their use.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and two persons who claimed to have sustained pellet injuries during the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest over the NEET paper leak.
The court directed the Centre to preserve the ammunition log of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed at Jantar Mantar during the protest. It also directed the Delhi government to ensure medical treatment for the injured petitioner and other similarly placed persons.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that instead of seeking an outright prohibition on metallic pellet guns, the petitioners should request the court to lay down a protocol regulating their use.
Justice Bagchi also advised the petitioners to amend their plea to enable the court to examine the existing legal framework governing the use of pellet guns. He noted that police rules permit their use in exceptional circumstances as part of a graded use-of-force policy unless those rules themselves are challenged.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Vrinda Grover argued that while rubber and plastic pellets are available, metallic pellets were allegedly used during the July 20 protest and were recovered from the bodies of the injured petitioners. She contended that the protesters were not a violent mob and questioned the necessity of using metallic projectiles.
Justice Bagchi observed that the court was prepared to examine allegations of misuse in individual cases but said the petitioners would have to demonstrate why the existing graded-response policy permitting pellet guns was arbitrary.
During the proceedings, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that an earlier police rule requiring firing at the chest appeared to be a colonial-era provision. Justice Bagchi noted that such a rule had subsequently been struck down.
The petition alleges that the Delhi Police, assisted by the CRPF’s Rapid Action Force, used tear gas and lathi charge without prior warning during the July 20 protest and later fired pump action guns loaded with metallic pellets at protesters who were allegedly retreating, causing injuries. Besides seeking a ban on metallic pellet guns, the petition also seeks compensation, medical treatment and rehabilitation for those injured in the police action.
