Supreme Court Reviews Pellet Gun Use Amid Protest Injuries

Medical Report Raises Concerns Over Pellet Gun Injuries

The situation has escalated following the release of a medical report concerning a protester allegedly injured by a pellet gun at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. During a Supreme Court hearing, petitioners claimed that multiple metal fragments were extracted from the injured individual's body. This report intensified the debate surrounding the use of pellet guns.

A senior advocate representing the petitioners informed the court that the projectiles employed by security forces during the protest were not standard rubber or plastic, but rather metal pellets. They argued that the discovery of metal fragments during medical examinations supports the assertion that metal pellets were used against the demonstrators.

The Supreme Court bench overseeing the case remarked that police may be permitted to use pellet guns under extraordinary circumstances to maintain law and order. However, the court emphasized that such weapons must be deployed in accordance with established protocols and a graded response. The court has requested the central government to present the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and regulations related to the use of pellet guns, as well as to ensure the proper documentation of ammunition used by the RAF stationed at Jantar Mantar.

The petition calls for a ban on the use of metal pellets for controlling civilian protests. Petitioners argue that these weapons can cause severe physical harm and their use is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of citizens. Additionally, they are seeking adequate compensation, improved medical care, and rehabilitation for the injured individuals.

The court also indicated that if there are allegations of excessive force in a specific case, those claims could be subject to judicial review. However, it reiterated that if the use of pellet guns is permitted under regulations in extraordinary situations, challengers must demonstrate that those rules were violated. Currently, the Supreme Court has summoned a response from the central government, and the case will be further examined in the next hearing.