Photo: IANS
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that pellet guns cannot be prohibited for crowd control unless the legal provisions permitting their use are amended, while indicating that it is willing to examine allegations of misuse in specific incidents.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notices to the Centre and the Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force (RAF), on petitions filed by former Intelligence Bureau special director Yashovardhan Azad and two individuals who allegedly suffered pellet gun injuries.
The petitions sought a ban on the use of pellet guns for dispersing civilian assemblies. The court also directed the Centre to preserve the ammunition log of RAF personnel deployed during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests at Jantar Mantar, the Indian Express reported.
The petitioners sought the decommissioning or prohibition of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles, including pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile action guns, arguing that these weapons, despite being classified as "less lethal" or "non-lethal", can inflict fatal or serious injuries when fired into crowds at close range. They cited the eye injury suffered by 19-year-old Sahil Lochab during the July 20 firing as an example of the severe consequences of their use against civilian protesters.
The petitions also relied on the United Nations Guidelines on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, which caution against using such weapons for crowd dispersal and state that the deployment of metallic pellet guns does not satisfy the principles of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vrinda Grover argued that the Bureau of Police Research and Development's (BPRD) Standard Operating Procedure for crowd control does not authorise the use of pellet guns. However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the document referred to was only a proposal and noted that the graded response mechanism for unlawful assemblies includes different levels of force, one of which permits the use of pellet guns.
Grover maintained that the existing SOP did not include metallic pellets and submitted that metal projectiles had been recovered from the bodies of the two injured petitioners. She argued that the choice of weapon and the level of force must always be assessed on the basis of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality, depending on the nature of the gathering.
Justice Bagchi, however, said the plea seeking a complete decommissioning of pellet guns was too vague unless the legal provisions permitting their use were first challenged. He observed that the court was willing to examine the use of pellet guns in a specific incident, but a blanket prohibition would require demonstrating that the existing rules did not authorise such use. He also noted that if the law permits the use of live bullets in extreme situations under a graded response, it would be difficult to argue that pellet guns alone should be completely prohibited.
Chief Justice Kant suggested that the petitioners could instead seek judicial directions for framing a protocol governing the circumstances in which such weapons may be used.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Delhi Government, remarked that the relevant provision permitting pellet guns appeared to date back to the colonial era.
Justice Bagchi further asked the petitioners to identify any statutory provisions or standing orders showing that the use of metallic pellets was arbitrary or unreasonable. Grover responded that accessing BPRD standing orders was difficult because they were not available in the public domain and urged the Union government to produce any such directions if they existed.
The bench observed that BPRD advisories should be publicly accessible, saying police personnel across the country should be able to refer to them.
While expressing agreement with the principle that student protests and peaceful demonstrations should be handled with restraint, Justice Bagchi observed that authorities also had to deal with situations where genuine protests were hijacked or turned violent, requiring different levels of response. He reiterated his earlier view that providing better protective equipment to police personnel could reduce the need to resort to more forceful measures.
The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to amend their pleas to challenge any relevant standing orders governing the use of pellet guns. It also ordered the Delhi Government to ensure proper medical treatment for those injured during the protests.