CJP attack deepens pellet gun court dispute

Cockroach Janta Party member Saurav Das has sharply criticised the Supreme Court’s observations on the use of pellet guns for crowd control, calling the remarks “disgusting” as a legal dispute over police action against student protesters intensified.

Das posted the single-word response on X on Thursday after the court questioned whether pellet guns could be prohibited in all circumstances when existing rules permit police to use firearms during extreme violence. His intervention brought a fresh political dimension to proceedings examining allegations that metallic pellets were fired at demonstrators during the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.

The case was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The petition was filed by former police officer and former Central Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad, along with Sheikh Irshad Mansoori and Prashant Kumar Singh, who said they suffered pellet injuries during the protest.

The petitioners sought a nationwide prohibition on wholly or partly metallic projectiles fired from pump-action or projectile-action guns for dispersing civilian gatherings. They also requested compensation for those injured and the preservation of operational records belonging to the Rapid Action Force, which was deployed at the demonstration.

The bench declined to consider an immediate blanket ban, finding that the demand had not directly challenged the regulations permitting pellet guns in exceptional situations. Justice Bagchi said a request to phase out the weapons would require a challenge to the governing rules rather than a general plea against their use.

The court also distinguished between banning pellet guns and regulating the circumstances in which they may be deployed. It indicated that a graded crowd-control protocol could specify when police may move from warnings and protective measures to tear gas, rubber pellets, metallic pellets or, in the gravest circumstances, firearms.

Chief Justice Kant suggested that the petitioners amend their request to seek a protocol governing deployment rather than an absolute prohibition. Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, agreed to revise the plea.

Grover argued that the July 20 gathering presented a different factual situation from an uncontrolled violent disturbance. She questioned the legal authority for firing metallic pellets at people who, the petitioners maintain, had assembled peacefully. She also said publicly available police guidelines had not been adequately updated, making scrutiny of crowd-control practices difficult.

The court directed the federal government to preserve the Rapid Action Force ammunition log and other material connected to its deployment at Jantar Mantar. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that documents needed for an effective investigation into allegations of excessive force would be retained.

The Delhi government was ordered to ensure adequate medical treatment for Mansoori, Singh and other people injured during the demonstrations. The petitioners said Mansoori received appropriate care at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, while Singh faced difficulties obtaining treatment.

Security officials have maintained that the force followed a graded response on July 20. Their account states that public announcements, tear gas and baton charges were used before pump-action guns were deployed. Around three to five protesters were reported to have suffered metallic pellet injuries.

The authorities have also pointed to injuries among security personnel. Forty-seven Rapid Action Force members were reported hurt, including six who sustained head injuries. The broader protests produced clashes across several cities, and the government told the court earlier in the week that about 250 police officers had been injured.

The bench stressed that the rights and safety of both demonstrators and police personnel must be considered. It observed that peaceful movements can sometimes be infiltrated or diverted by people pursuing violent or unrelated objectives. Police, it said, should be equipped with sufficient protective gear so that officers are not forced to escalate rapidly when confronting threats.

Das’s response nevertheless reflected growing anger within the CJP over what its members see as an attempt to normalise a weapon capable of causing severe and permanent injury. The organisation has questioned whether any exceptional circumstance existed at Jantar Mantar and has demanded accountability for individual officers and commanders involved in the operation.

The legal challenge forms part of a wider judicial examination of the handling of youth-led demonstrations over examination paper leaks. On July 28, the Supreme Court barred coercive action against protesters, directed the release of detained minors and ordered authorities to preserve surveillance footage, including material gathered through drones, body cameras and closed-circuit television systems.