Can ‘exceptional circumstances’ justify the use of pellet guns on protesters? What Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that pellet guns cannot be prohibited as long as the existing advisory allows security agencies to use them for crowd control in exceptional circumstances. However, the court clarified that allegations of individual instances of misuse can be considered separately on a case-by-case basis, according to PTI.

The apex court was hearing a plea regarding the use of metal-pellet guns during the recent student protests in Delhi over the NEET paper leak. It directed the Centre to preserve the ammunition records of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed at Jantar Mantar during the protests.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that police personnel are permitted to use pellet guns in exceptional situations under the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) advisory. The bench described the plea seeking a complete ban on their use as "vague".

"Prayers are not to use pellet guns. In exceptional cases, police regulations permit the use of pellet guns. If you are interested in phasing out pellet guns, you will have to challenge that very provision as ultra vires to Article 21 (right to life)," Justice Bagchi stated.

The apex court bench took note of the arguments presented by senior advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the petitioners, and directed the Delhi government to ensure proper medical care for Prashant Kumar, Sheikh Irshad Mansoori and other protesters who sustained pellet gun injuries during the 20 July protest in Delhi.

Former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, along with the two injured petitioners, had approached the court seeking a complete prohibition on the use of metal-pellet guns during law and order situations.

The bench also sought responses from the Centre and the Inspector General of Police, RAF, by issuing notices on the plea filed by Azad and the two injured victims.

Here's what happened during the court hearing

At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petitioners' request for a complete ban on the use of pellet guns to disperse civilian crowds was "vague", noting that the plea did not challenge the existing police regulations that permit the use of such weapons.

Appearing for the petitioners, Grover argued that the relevant regulations were not easily accessible in the public domain and urged the bench to direct the Centre to place them on record.

The petition states that Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori sustained pellet injuries during the 'Sansad Chalo' march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on 20 July.

Grover told the court that metallic pellets had been used against the petitioners and were recovered from their bodies.

"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," she stated.

The bench observed that it was willing to examine the use of pellet guns in a specific incident, provided the petitioners could demonstrate whether their use was permissible under the prescribed "graded approach".

Grover clarified that the relief sought in the petition was limited to the use of metallic pellets.

"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 mentioned.

"I could not find any such standing order of the Delhi Police at all," Grover added.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government would extend all necessary assistance to the bench.

Referring to the Supreme Court's 28 July order, senior advocate Vrinda Grover said the court had directed the preservation of CCTV, drone and body camera footage, as well as wireless logs, but had not specifically mentioned preserving the Rapid Action Force ammunition logs.

"Whatever is required for investigation will be preserved," the solicitor general said.

The bench observed that even a bona fide protest could turn violent at any stage, possibly because of the presence of anti-social elements, and noted that "graded responses" by law enforcement agencies may sometimes be required.

Responding to the observation, the law officer said security forces may have to take on-the-spot decisions depending on the situation.

Former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad moved the Supreme Court seeking a nationwide prohibition on the use of wholly or partly metallic pellet ammunition fired from pump-action or projectile-action guns for dispersing civilian gatherings. The petition argued that such weapons are fundamentally incompatible with the constitutional principles governing the use of force.

The petition also requested exemplary compensation, along with comprehensive medical treatment and rehabilitation, for all those who were allegedly injured during the incident.

According to the petition, the RAF, which had been deployed to assist the Delhi Police in managing the protests, used tear gas and lathi-charge before allegedly firing pump-action guns loaded with metallic pellets near Connaught Place.

The petitioners alleged that security personnel intensified the use of force without issuing any prior warning or public announcement, resulting in several protesters sustaining serious injuries, including damage to their eyes.

The plea argued that pellet guns, despite being classified as "less-lethal" weapons, release hundreds of projectiles over a wide area, making precise targeting impossible and significantly increasing the risk of severe injuries to the eyes and other vital parts of the body.

It further contended that the use of such weapons does not satisfy the constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness, which govern restrictions on the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b).

(With inputs from agencies)