Supreme Court Addresses Pellet Gun Controversy Amid Delhi Police's Decision

The ongoing debate regarding the use of pellet guns on protesters during the March session of Parliament has taken a significant turn in both legal and political arenas. The Supreme Court has clarified that a complete ban on pellet guns cannot be enforced without amending existing legal provisions. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police has decided to withdraw 13 FIRs filed against protesters from the Cockroach People's Party (CJP), providing some relief. However, individuals involved in violence or with criminal backgrounds remain excluded from this relief.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing petitions demanding a ban on pellet guns, stated that if petitioners wish to eliminate these weapons entirely, they must challenge the legal provisions that permit their use for crowd control, even in extraordinary circumstances, under Article 21 of the Constitution.

During the proceedings, the court also indicated its willingness to investigate the alleged misuse of pellet guns in specific incidents. It issued notices to the central government and the Inspector General of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), instructing them to preserve records of the weapons and ammunition used by RAF personnel deployed during the CJP protest on July 20 at Jantar Mantar.

Petitions filed by former IB Special Director Yashovardhan Azad and two injured youths have called for a complete ban on metal pellet guns. The petitioners argue that while these are labeled as 'less lethal' weapons, they can cause permanent damage to vital body parts, including the eyes, when fired at close range. They cited the severe eye injury suffered by 19-year-old Sahil Lochab as an example of police brutality.

The petitioners also referenced the United Nations guidelines on 'less lethal weapons,' which deem the use of metal pellets against crowds as contrary to the principles of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the petitioners, informed the court that the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) does not include the use of pellet guns in its standard operating procedures for crowd control. However, Justice Bagchi remarked that the relevant documents are merely proposals, and the current system does allow for the use of pellet guns under a 'graded response' for crowd control.

The court emphasized that peaceful student movements and democratic protests should adopt non-violent methods, but acknowledged that peaceful demonstrations can sometimes be hijacked by anti-social elements, necessitating various levels of force for maintaining law and order.

During the hearing, the court inquired whether there are any permanent orders or guidelines regarding the use of pellet guns, suggesting that such information should be made public. Justice Bagchi noted that BPRD's advice and guidelines should be accessible online to ensure transparency within the police administration.

In a related development, the Delhi Police has made a significant decision to withdraw 13 FIRs filed against CJP protesters following the Parliament march. According to police officials, this relief will only apply to those protesters who are not accused of violence or damaging public property. Actions will continue against individuals with criminal records or serious charges, such as attacking security forces.

It is important to recall that on July 20, thousands of protesters participated in a Parliament march demanding accountability for the NEET-UG exam paper leak. Clashes occurred between the protesters and security forces near Parliament, leading to the police deploying tear gas, batons, and reportedly pellet guns. Several individuals were injured, and multiple FIRs were filed under various sections, including rioting and obstruction of government work.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's hearing and the Delhi Police's decision have transformed this controversy into more than just a law and order issue. In the coming days, it will be determined how the use of metal pellet guns for crowd control holds up against constitutional scrutiny and what new limits will be established for police force in democratic protests.