The Supreme Court’s observations on pellet guns in connection with the recent police action on youth protests in Delhi did not engage with a fundamental issue regarding their use. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing a petition on the use of metallic pellets as ammunition by the CRPF’s Rapid Action Force, expressed reservations about the petition. The Court found the demand vague because it did not challenge existing police regulations. It pointed out that the regulations allowed the use of such weapons in exceptional situations, and a prayer for a blanket ban would be untenable without challenging the validity of those very regulations. The Court noted that a bona fide protest may turn violent at any point, perhaps due to infiltration of anti-social elements, sometimes necessitating graded responses of law enforcement.

Pellet guns, as a crowd control measure, are distinct from a lathi charge or the use of water cannons. They don’t merely deter; they are instruments of deliberate punishment and risk causing permanent impairment to the affected. Crowd control measures cannot be aimed at punishment, which should come only at the end of a trial. The youth at Jantar Mantar did not commit any offence; they only exercised their right to protest. Past use of pellet guns has caused blindness, facial disfigurement or neurological damage. Kashmir has reported many such cases. Using them against students and other protesters cannot be defined in terms of a “graded response”. This state response is disproportionate and should not have a place in a democratic society.

The condition that pellet guns should be used only in exceptional situations is flawed. When the police face an unruly crowd, the personnel won’t be in a position to decide whether they are engaging with something exceptional. In a rapidly evolving situation, while managing an agitated group of people, they might not possess the mental frame for a considered decision. While the use of firearms comes with stipulations such as the below-the-knee guideline, pellet fire can become indiscriminate, causing injuries anywhere on the body. Many international human rights organisations and medical bodies have sought a ban on the use of pellet guns. If the Supreme Court intends to ban the use of these weapons, it can quash the administrative rules and standard operating procedures that make their use legal. The Court can do it under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives it discretionary powers. (Source: DH)