Delhi Protesters Allegedly Hit By Pellets Move Supreme Court Seeking Ban On Pellet Guns In Civilian Protests

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions for decommissioning pellet guns(projectile action guns) by law enforcement for civilian crowd dispersal.

The Article 32 petition has been filed by a former IPS officer, Yashovardhan Azan and two other persons, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Singh and Mansoori claimed to have become victims of the pellets fired by the Rapid Action Force(RAF) during the Sansad Chalo demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party on July 20 over the issue of exam paper leaks.

As per the petition, the Singh and Mansoor witnessed that the RAF had suddenly fired a pump action gun, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, which had penetrated their bodies, causing immediate pain and bleeding. It has been stated that they were taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College, where they received surgical intervention for removal of pellets lodged in their body. Singh said he had witnessed at least one more person come to the hospital with pellet injuries. 

They have sought compensation for all victims against the injuries caused to them.

"Constrained by the use of kinetic projectiles like metallic pellets for crowd dispersal, which have a propensity to cause serious, debilitating and long-lasting damage to the health of the protestors, the present Public Interest Litigation is filed seeking urgent relief(s) from this Hon'ble Court to safeguard inter-alia the constitutional and fundamental rights of India's youth protestors and civilian assemblies."

The petition mentions that the RAF has ordered a verification into the allegation of excesses as a news report revealed that, as per the logbook of the RAF, seven rounds of pellet guns were fired by them on July 20.

It has been submitted by the petitioners that the use of pellets is per se unfit for dispersal of peaceful assemblies as it fails the constitutional test of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. Referring to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, they have pointed out that the legislative scheme clearly indicates that an assembly must first be commanded to disperse, and if it does not do so, then all efforts must be made to disperse the assembly using civil force. 

"Given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the trajectory of pellets once fired, the Petitioners argue that the same makes the pellet guns an unreasonable, arbitrary and dangerous tool unfit for deployment against civilian assemblies for the purpose of their dispersal. The very mechanism of the pellets disqualifies them from being a legally valid option for crowd control, as it cannot be qualitatively stated to fall within the “least amount of necessary force” at any given point of time in view of its erratic kinetic projectile movement," the plea says.

Additionally, they rely on the UN Guidelines 2020 on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, which advises against the use of such guns against a crowd.

The petitioners explained that pellets are usually pumped-action guns of .12 bore and the rifle is a generic 'shotgun' which is loaded with a cartridge containing 250-400 small projectiles, referred to as pellets made with metal. Since pellets target a wide zone in the general direction, they create a great propensity of injuring the eyes and other vital organs of the person in an assembly. 

"Although such guns are classified as “less lethal” or “non-lethal” alternatives to general firearms, when fired into a large crowd from close proximity, it has the propensity to cause fatal and grievous injuries, especially to vital organs. In the 20th July firing, the injured eye of Sahil Lochab, a 19-year-old victim, bears glaring testimony to the ruthless and grievous nature of this weapon when deployed against civilian protestors."

The petition also relies on Supreme Court judgments on proportionality and compensation for violation of fundamental rights, including K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar.

The petition prays for directions for banning or decommissioning the use of wholly or partly metallic pellet guns for dispersing civilian assemblies.

Exemplary compensation, along with complete medical treatment, care and rehabilitation, to all persons injured in the July 20 incident, is also sought.

The petitioners are represented by Advocates Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, and Devika Tulsiani.

Case : Yashovardhan Azan and others v Union of India and others.