Pellet guns can't be banned as long as existing advisory permits their use: SC

New Delhi, July 30 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to order a blanket ban on the use of pellet guns for crowd control, saying such a direction cannot be issued while existing police guidelines permit their use in exceptional situations. At the same time, the court agreed to examine allegations of misuse during the July 20 students' protest against the alleged NEET paper leak in Delhi, directed the Centre to preserve the ammunition log of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed at Jantar Mantar, and asked the Delhi government to provide the best medical treatment to protesters who suffered pellet injuries. The court also issued notices to the Centre and the Inspector General of Police, RAF, on a petition seeking a nationwide ban on metallic pellet ammunition for civilian crowd control.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that, under the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) advisory, police are permitted to use pellet guns in exceptional circumstances.

Justice Bagchi described the petition's request for a complete ban as "vague", saying the existing regulatory framework allowing such weapons had not been challenged.

"If you are interested in phasing out pellet guns, you will have to challenge that very provision as ultra vires to Article 21," Justice Bagchi remarked, referring to the constitutional right to life.

The petition was filed by former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad along with injured protesters Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. They sought a nationwide ban on wholly or partly metallic pellet ammunition fired from pump action or projectile action guns for dispersing civilian assemblies, arguing that such weapons are incompatible with constitutional standards governing the use of force.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the present case was confined to the use of metallic pellets. She said pellets had been recovered from the bodies of the injured protesters.

"I am not saying pellet guns should not be in the armoury of the RAF or not. Here it is different. They have used metallic pellets," Grover submitted.

The bench said it was willing to examine whether the use of pellet ammunition in the July 20 incident was permissible under the prescribed "graded approach" for handling law and order situations.

Grover argued that no Delhi Police standing order permitting the use of pellet guns could be found in the public domain and urged the court to direct the Union government to place any such order on record.

"There is no standing order of the Delhi Police which permits the use of pellets. That is why my difficulty arises, and I have to rely on BPRD. If there is such a standing order, the Union may place it on record. I am sure the Union and the Delhi Police do not wish to fire pellets on innocent youngsters," she said, adding that she had been unable to locate any such standing order.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that the government would extend all necessary assistance during the proceedings.

Referring to the court's earlier order of July 28 directing preservation of CCTV footage, drone footage, body camera recordings and wireless logs, Grover pointed out that the order had not specifically mentioned RAF ammunition records. The bench then directed that the ammunition log also be preserved.

Mehta responded, "Whatever is required for investigation will be preserved."

The bench observed that even a peaceful protest could suddenly turn violent because of the entry of anti social elements and that law enforcement agencies may have to take decisions on the spot. It noted that graded responses may sometimes be necessary depending on the situation.

The court also directed the Delhi government to provide the best available treatment to Kumar, Mansoori and other persons who sustained pellet injuries during the protest.

According to the petition, the injured protesters were part of the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" march called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over the alleged NEET paper leak. It alleged that the RAF, deployed to assist the Delhi Police in crowd management near Connaught Place, first used tear gas and lathi charge before firing pump action guns loaded with metallic pellets.

The petition claimed no prior warning or announcement was issued before force was escalated and alleged that several protesters suffered serious injuries, including eye injuries.

It further argued that pellet guns, though often described as "less lethal", scatter hundreds of projectiles over a wide area, making precise targeting impossible and creating a high risk of severe injuries to the eyes and other vital organs. The plea contended that such weapons fail the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness applicable to restrictions on the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b). Along with a ban, the petition sought compensation, medical treatment and rehabilitation for all those allegedly injured in the incident.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.