NEW DELHI — A former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer and two individuals who suffered injuries during a recent protest in the national capital have moved the Supreme Court of India seeking a total ban on the deployment of pellet guns and metallic kinetic projectiles for dispersing civilian assemblies.
The writ petition—filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad alongside victims Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori through advocate Vrinda Grover—calls for clear judicial directives to decommission pump-action rifles and Projectile Action Guns (PAG) used by security forces.
Allegations of Unprovoked Force
According to the petition, the incident took place on July 20 during the 'Sansad Chalo' march organized by the Cockroach Janata Party to protest widespread paper leaks affecting higher education entrance exams across the country.
The plea details that Delhi Police, assisted by the Central Reserve Police Force’s (CRPF) Rapid Action Force (RAF), deployed heavy crowd control measures near Connaught Place.
Petitioner Prashant Kumar, 25, a professional artist, stated that he was participating peacefully when RAF personnel opened fire with pellet guns without warning or provocation. Similarly, 26-year-old Sheikh Irshad Mansoori claimed he was struck by stray pellets near Connaught Place while returning from passport-related work, despite not engaging in any aggressive behavior.
"Around 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM, police and RAF personnel incessantly fired tear gas shells, resorted to lathi charges, and pushed protesters towards the Inner Circle of Connaught Place. No water cannons were deployed, nor were any public announcements made before force was escalated," the petition alleged.
It further noted that while fleeing citizens raised their hands in surrender, security personnel discharged pump-action shotguns, releasing erratic sprays of splinter-like pellets that struck bystander citizens and peaceful demonstrators, causing severe bleeding and deep tissue injuries.
Constitutional and Legal Objections
Challenging the legality of kinetic projectile weapons, the petitioners argued that the peaceful right to assembly is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, which can only be restricted under stringent parameters of necessity and proportionality under Article 19(3).
The plea contended that pellet shotguns are inherently indiscriminate and unpredictable due to the uncontrolled trajectory of multiple metallic pellets upon firing. Consequently, their use fails the legal test of "least necessary force" required for crowd dispersal.
"The very firing mechanism of pellets disqualifies them from being a legally viable option for crowd control. Their sporadic kinetic movement makes them an arbitrary, dangerous, and disproportionate response against civilian gatherings," the petition stated.
Relief Sought From Apex Court
Beyond a nationwide prohibition on metallic projectiles and pump-action rifles in civilian policing, the petitioners have urged the Supreme Court to mandate exemplary financial compensation for all individuals injured during the July 20 incident, alongside directing state authorities to cover complete medical treatment and long-term rehabilitation for the victims.
