Supreme Court: Pellet guns part of graded police response
The Supreme Court on Thursday said the use of pellet guns by the police in “exceptional circumstances” was part of a graded approach to break civilian protests. The court, however, did not expand on which “exceptional circumstances” justified the use of pellet guns, nor did it ask the Union government for an explanation during the hearing.
Graded Response to Protests
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, one of the three judges on the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed orally that police rules allow the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances. One of the graded responses is the use of pellet guns. The Bench flagged the possibility of unscrupulous elements hijacking a bona fide students’ protest, driving it into a spiral of violence. “We are completely in agreement with pleas of no-violence principle when it comes to agitation of students or persons expressing dissatisfaction with a government policy,” Justice Bagchi said. “But there is also the question of elements hijacking students’ protests.”
The police have to be prepared with a graded response, which includes the use of force, to every possible turn of events while dealing with a restive crowd. The court was hesitant to consider a blanket ban on pellet guns. It said it would examine particular incidents during which the police had used pellet guns indiscriminately or arbitrarily in violation of the standard regulations mapping graded responses for crowd control.
Related: Newgen Software Recognized in Digital Process Automation Landscape
Legal Action and Safety Gear
The court was hearing a petition filed by former Indian Police Service officer Yashovardhan Azad and two pellet injury victims, Prashant Kumar Singh and Shekh Irshad Mansoori. The petition primarily sought a direction to ban the use of kinetic metallic pellets by law enforcement agencies on civilian assemblies. The court said the prayer was vague and asked advocate Vrinda Grover to amend the petition to challenge the rules which allow the use of pellet guns.
Ms. Grover said she could not find any standing orders of the Delhi Police mandating the use of pellet guns. The court turned to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to place on record any standard regulations or protocol followed by the police in controlling unlawful assemblies. Justice Bagchi sounded out the government on the need to arm the police with protective gear. This, he said, would give police personnel the confidence of a precious few seconds to pause and think before unleashing violence on protestors. The judge said every person, including the policeman confronting a crowd, was only human.
Two of the petitioners, Mr. Singh and Mr. Mansoori, were injured by pellets during the July 20 police action on crowds which had converged at Jantar Mantar for protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party demanding the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over rampant exam paper leaks. Rapid Action Force personnel had fired pump-action guns, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets at fleeing protestors, many of whom had their arms raised in “surrender.”
Related: Sorry, you have been blocked
It is a difficult balance to strike between maintaining order and protecting citizens from excessive force. Historically, police forces around the world have faced this specific dilemma when crowd sizes swell and violence threatens to spiral out of control. The concept of a “graded response” attempts to codify this balance by restricting the use of lethal or semi-lethal weapons to specific thresholds, yet the practical application often depends on the split-second judgment of officers on the ground. If a standard response is too rigid, it may fail to contain a threat; if too loose, it risks becoming a cover for disproportionate action.
The Bench had previously ordered the safekeeping of footage from CCTVs, body cams, and drones, and other video evidence, along with wireless and Police Control Room communications. Ms. Grover urged the court to direct the Union government and the Delhi Police to preserve the duty logs, weapon and ammunition logs, and the register pertaining to the RAF deployment on July 20. These records were not part of the documents directed to be preserved in the court’s previous orders, the senior lawyer said. The court also directed the Delhi government to provide full treatment to Mr. Singh for his injuries.
