New Delhi: A retired Special Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and two persons injured during the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ protest have moved the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns for crowd control, arguing that the weapons are inherently “indiscriminate and unconstitutional”, according to media reports.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by former IB Special Director Yashovardhan Azad, a 1976-batch IPS officer and recipient of the Police Medal and President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service, along with two persons who allegedly sustained pellet injuries during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, reports said.
According to reports, the petition seeks directions for decommissioning or banning projectile action guns (PAGs), including pump-action guns loaded wholly or partly with metallic pellets, for dispersing civilian assemblies.
The plea has also sought exemplary compensation for those injured during the July 20 police action, besides complete medical treatment, rehabilitation and long-term care for the victims.
The petition contends that pellet guns are fundamentally unsuitable for crowd control because of the unpredictable trajectory of the pellets after they are fired.
Unlike conventional bullets directed at a specific target, pellets disperse over a wider area and may ricochet off surfaces or fragment into multiple projectiles, making it difficult to control whom they strike, the plea argues, according to reports.
It further claims that such weapons carry a significant risk of causing grievous injuries, particularly to the eyes and other vital organs, even when fired towards non-vital parts of the body.
The petition has reportedly referred to the use of pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur over the past two decades, arguing that although the weapons are classified as “less lethal” or “non-lethal”, they can cause fatal or life-altering injuries when fired into crowds at close range.
“Given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the trajectory of pellets once fired, the petitioners argue that pellet guns are an unreasonable, arbitrary and dangerous tool unfit for deployment against civilian assemblies for the purpose of their dispersal,” the petition states, as quoted in media reports.
The plea contends that the use of pellet guns violates the constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness, besides infringing upon the fundamental right to peaceful assembly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
It has also questioned the basis for using .12-bore pump-action pellet guns for crowd dispersal, claiming that such weapons do not form part of the Union government’s own crowd-control framework.
According to the petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had constituted a task force headed by the Union Home Secretary on September 22, 2010, to prepare a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling public agitations through non-lethal measures. The Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was among its members.
The petitioners have cited this as significant because personnel of the Rapid Action Force, which operates under the CRPF, allegedly used pellet guns during the July 20 protest in Delhi.
The SOP, subsequently circulated by the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) to the Delhi Police Commissioner on March 11, 2011, examined several less-lethal crowd-control options, including plastic bullets, tasers, net guns, laser dazzlers, Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), pepper-ball launchers, tear-gas shells, stingers and dye markers, according to the plea.
However, the petition claims that the SOP neither recommended nor considered the use of .12-bore pump-action guns loaded with metallic pellets for dispersing civilian assemblies.
Citing these documents, the petitioners have argued that pellet guns lack sanction under the MHA’s approved SOP for crowd management.
The plea further claims that, to the petitioners’ knowledge and based on publicly available records, the BPRD has not published any study evaluating or endorsing the use of .12-bore pellet guns for crowd dispersal.
Their deployment by law enforcement agencies is therefore unsupported by the Union government’s prescribed crowd-control protocol and is arbitrary, disproportionate and unconstitutional, the petition contends.
The PIL has also cited the 2020 United Nations Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement while challenging the use of pellet guns against civilian protesters.
Among the petitioners are 25-year-old Prashant Kumar Singh and 26-year-old Sheik Ishaad Mansoori, who allegedly suffered pellet injuries during the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ march.
According to the plea, both continue to undergo medical treatment, with pellets still lodged in their bodies and requiring surgical intervention.
The petition also refers to 19-year-old Sahil Lochab, who reportedly suffered an eye injury, citing his case to highlight the potentially severe and permanent consequences of pellet guns being used against civilian protesters.
Arguing that those injured during the July 20 police action are entitled to compensation under public law, the petition has urged the Supreme Court to direct the Centre and law enforcement agencies to discontinue the use of pellet guns for dispersing civilian assemblies.
It has also sought compensation, medical treatment, rehabilitation and long-term care for those injured in the police action, according to media reports.
