Pellet guns at CJP Protest: SC says graded response required in some cases, directs Delhi govt to provide treatment

Theindiapostdaily.com – “`html

Supreme Court Reviews Pellet Gun Deployment During Student Demonstration

The apex court indicated on Thursday that it will review claims regarding pellet gun usage during the Cockroach Janata Party’s “Sansad Chalo” procession held on July 20. The march aimed to highlight concerns about the NEET examination paper leak. According to Bar and Bench, Chief Justice Surya Kant instructed authorities in Delhi to ensure medical care reaches the injured petitioner and others in similar situations.

A legal challenge was initiated by two individuals who reportedly sustained pellet-related wounds during the student demonstrations. Additionally, former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad joined as the third petitioner. Live Law reported that the filing requested both monetary compensation for affected parties and a prohibition on pellet gun deployment against civilians.

Legal Arguments on Pellet Gun Regulations

During proceedings, the bench questioned whether a total prohibition on metallic pellet guns was warranted for maintaining public order. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that existing police regulations permit pellet gun deployment under special conditions. Unless the rules themselves face legal challenge, she noted that pellet guns represent one component of a graduated response strategy.

Prayers are not to use pellet guns. Police regulations permit in exceptional cases. You have to challenge as ultra vires…

Justice Bagchi characterized the petition’s request as imprecise. The legal representative for the petitioners explained that crowd dynamics influence pellet gun deployment decisions. The counsel noted that rubber, plastic, and metallic variants exist, with metallic pellets recovered from injured individuals. The advocate questioned whether the gathering constituted a violent mob, concluding that metallic pellets were indeed discharged despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration.

Justice Bagchi expressed openness to evaluating pellet gun usage on a case-by-case basis. CJI Surya Kant suggested that rather than seeking an outright ban, the petitioners should request the court to establish clear guidelines for pellet gun deployment, particularly given allegations of excessive force.

The petitioner’s lawyer pointed out that Delhi Police lacks a formal directive mandating pellet gun usage. The counsel expressed confidence that neither the Union government nor the National Capital Territory intended to fire pellets at students. The Supreme Court additionally instructed the central government to maintain ammunition records from RAF personnel stationed at Jantar Mantar during the demonstrations.

Reports of Pellet Gun Injuries Surface

Multiple accounts emerged following the July 20 protest march, which experienced violent confrontations. While law enforcement denied deploying pellet guns against peaceful demonstrators, photographic evidence, video footage, and victim testimonies presented conflicting information. At least three individuals reported pellet gun injuries during the clashes between protesters and police on July 20.

An Outlook journalist, along with 19-year-old Sahil Lochab and 25-year-old Shaikh Irshad Mansoori, claimed to have sustained pellet gun wounds. A pellet gun functions as either an air rifle or specialized shotgun designed for sporting activities, pest management, or crowd control operations. Unlike conventional firearms that utilize gunpowder, pellet guns propel small metal or lead projectiles through compressed air, gas, or spring mechanisms.

Reports indicate that the RAF, an anti-riot formation operating under the Central Reserve Police Force, carried both pellet guns and shock batons. This unit was deployed alongside Delhi Police officers in and around Jantar Mantar on July 20.

Government Response to Allegations

Union Minister Jitendra Singh addressed the controversy in Parliament earlier in the week. He stated that when Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi claimed the home minister ordered firing on students, such authorization would come from an SDM, magistrate, or district magistrate. The minister, drawing on his experience as an MLA, asserted that no firing occurred and only tear gas was deployed, with magistrates holding the authority to authorize its use.

Rahul Gandhi said that bullets were fired at the students. He lied. No bullet was fired. He also lied that Home Minister Amit Shah ordered the firing.

BJP MP Sambit Patra made similar statements at a Wednesday press conference, accusing Rahul Gandhi of making false claims about both bullet firing and the home minister’s involvement in ordering the action.

Rahul Gandhi had previously generated significant debate in the Lok Sabha when he attributed police excesses against student demonstrators during the Cockroach Janta Party’s July 20 march in New Delhi to Home Minister Amit Shah.

“`