A retired Intelligence Bureau Special Director and two people 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.”
The public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad, a 1976-batch IPS officer and recipient of the Police Medal and the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service, along with two victims who sustained pellet injuries during the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar.
The petition seeks directions to decommission or ban the use of projectile action guns (PAGs), including pump-action guns loaded with wholly or partly metallic pellets, for dispersing civilian assemblies. It also seeks exemplary compensation for those injured in the July 20 police action, besides complete medical treatment, rehabilitation and long-term care for all victims.
Azad argued that pellet guns are fundamentally unsuitable for crowd control because of the unpredictable trajectory of the pellets they fire.
According to the petition, unlike conventional bullets that are directed at a specific target, pellets disperse over a wide area, ricochet off surfaces and fragment into multiple projectiles, making it impossible to control whom they strike. As a result, they carry a high risk of causing grievous injuries to the eyes and other vital organs, even when aimed at non-vital parts of the body.
The petition states that this danger has been documented during the use of pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur over the past two decades. It argues that although such weapons are classified as "less lethal" or "non-lethal", they can inflict 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.
It further contends that the use of pellet guns violates the constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness, and infringes upon the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The petition also argues that the use of .12-bore pump-action pellet guns for crowd dispersal has no basis in the union government’s own crowd-control framework.
According to the petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) 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 using non-lethal measures. The Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was among its members. This is crucial as the Rapid Action Force under the CRPF allegedly used pellet guns during the Delhi protest.
The SOP, 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.
However, it did not recommend or even consider the use of .12-bore pump-action rifles loaded with metallic pellets for dispersing civilian assemblies.
Citing these documents, the petition contends that pellet guns lack official sanction under the MHA's approved SOP for crowd management. It further states that, to the petitioner's knowledge and based on publicly available records, the BPRD has never published any study evaluating or endorsing the use of .12-bore pellet guns for crowd dispersal. The petition argues that their deployment by law enforcement agencies is therefore unsupported by the Union government's own prescribed crowd-control protocol, in addition to being arbitrary, disproportionate and unconstitutional.
The petition also cites the 2020 United Nations Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, which advises against the use of such weapons for crowd control.
Among the petitioners are 25-year-old Prashant Kumar Singh and 26-year-old Sheik Ishaad Mansoori, who 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 requiring surgical intervention.
The petition also refers to the case of 19-year-old Sahil Lochab, whose eye injury, it says, demonstrates the severe and potentially permanent harm caused by pellet guns when used against civilian protesters.
Arguing that those injured by the July 20 police action are entitled to compensation under public law, the petition urges the Supreme Court to direct the Centre and law enforcement agencies to discontinue the use of pellet guns for crowd dispersal and ensure compensation, medical treatment and rehabilitation for all victims