Supreme Court puts police pellet gun use under lens, seeks SOP on crowd-control protocols

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the use of metallic pellet guns by police during the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) protests at Delhi's Jantar Mantar, observing that such force is permitted only in exceptional circumstances under existing police rules and directing the Delhi Police to place on record the standard operating procedure (SOP) governing their use.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Centre and sought its response on the rules, protocols and SOPs regulating the deployment of pellet guns by police forces. The matter stems from a petition challenging the alleged use of metallic pellets during the July 20 crackdown on students protesting the NEET-UG paper leak.

The hearing focused on whether the force used by the police conformed to the graded response framework prescribed under police rules, rather than on an outright prohibition of pellet guns.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vrinda Grover argued that the police had fired kinetic metallic projectiles at protesters, distinguishing them from rubber or plastic pellets that are generally considered less harmful.

“There can be rubber, plastic and metallic pellets. These were metallic and recovered from the bodies. Nature of the crowd will determine use of this as well. Was it a violent mob? No. These metallic pellets were fired,” Grover submitted, contending that the gathering consisted of students and protesters who did not pose the kind of threat that would justify the use of such weapons.

Justice Bagchi, however, pointed out that police rules already permit the use of pellet guns in limited situations.

“Police rules allow the use in exceptional circumstances unless you challenge the rules themselves. One of the steps of the graded approach is use of pellet guns,” he observed.

The bench indicated that it was prepared to examine whether the deployment of pellet guns in the present case was justified, but said the petitioners would first have to demonstrate that the police had violated the graded use-of-force protocol.

“We are not averse to examining the use of pellets in an individual case. You have to show us if graded response use of pellets can be allowed when even bullets are used in some situations,” Justice Bagchi remarked.

Chief Justice Surya Kant suggested that the petition could be reframed to seek judicial guidelines governing the use of pellet guns rather than a blanket challenge to their deployment.

“In light of the alleged excessive use, your prayer should be that the court lays down a protocol regarding the use,” the CJI observed, signalling that the court may consider evolving safeguards on when and how such weapons can be deployed during crowd-control operations.

The bench also underlined the importance of restraint while policing protests. Justice Bagchi said the court endorsed the principle that peaceful protesters should not be subjected to violence, though law enforcement agencies may have to adopt a graded response in exceptional situations.

“We are in agreement with your prayer for no violence principle on persons expressing dissatisfaction or protesting. But a graded response may be required in some cases. The best way is to arm police personnel; that gives them confidence. Everyone is a human being. If someone is coming with a lathi, you will take a few more moments before the reaction,” he observed.

The petition arises from the violence that erupted during the CJP's Chalo Sansad march on July 20 over the alleged NEET-UG paper leak. Clashes broke out between protesters and security personnel at multiple points around Jantar Mantar, leaving several demonstrators and police personnel injured.

According to official records submitted by the police, the Rapid Action Force deployed 55 non-electrical shells, 15 electrical shells, five tear smoke grenades, two rounds from anti-riot guns and two rounds of plastic pellet cartridges during the operation. Police have stated that each plastic pellet cartridge contains four plastic projectiles designed to inflict less severe injuries than metallic pellets.

The court has now sought the Centre's response and directed the Delhi Police to place the SOP governing the use of pellet guns on record. The outcome of the case could have wider implications for crowd-control practices and the judicial scrutiny of police use of force during protests, particularly where students and other civilian demonstrators are involved.