Supreme Court Says Plea To Ban Pellet Use Against Civilian Assemblies Is Vague Without Challenging Regulations

While hearing a plea alleging the use of pellet guns by the Rapid Action Force against the student protests in Delhi last week, the Supreme Court on Thursday orally observed that the petitioners' prayer seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns (projectile action guns) by law enforcement agencies for civilian crowd dispersal was "vague" without challenging the police regulations which permit the use of such weapons.

The petitioners' counsel, Advocate Vrinda Grover, submitted that such regulations are not easy to find in the public domain, and requested that the Union may be directed to place them on record, so that the petitioners can amend the prayers.

While adjourning the matter, the bench passed an interim order directing the Delhi Government to ensure that the injured petitioners and other similarly placed persons are given adequate medical treatment.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the petition filed by former IPS officer, Yashovardhan Azad, and two other persons, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Singh and Mansoori claim to be victims of 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.

At the outset, Justice Bagchi told Grover that police regulations allow the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances, and without challenging the validity of those regulations, the reliefs might be barred.

Grover submitted that as regards the petitioners, metallic pellets were used, and they were recovered from their bodies. "I am not saying pellet guns should not be in the armoury of the RAF or not. Here it is different. They have used metallic pellets..." Grover submitted.

Justice Bagchi interrupted her again, saying that the first relief sought in the petition, seeking the ban on use of pellet guns to disperse civilian gatherings, will be vague unless the regulations are challenged. Justice Bagchi said that the Court was "not averse to examining use of pellets in a particular incident", bu the petitioners must show if it was permissible under a "graded approach."  

Grover clarified that she is confining her reliefs to metallic pellets. She added that there was difficulty in procuring the guidelines of the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), and it was with great difficulty that the present document, which pertains to 2016, was obtained through an RTI application.  "There is no standing order of the Delhi police which permits the use of pellets. That is why my difficulty arises, and I have to rely on BPRD. If there is such a standing order, the Union may place it on record. I am sure the Union and the Delhi police do not wish to fire pellets on innocent youngsters," she said.

"I could not find any such standing order of the Delhi police at all," Grover asserted, urging the Court to ask the Union to inform if there is any such instruction. Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, said that he will do whatever is necessary to assist the Court.

Grover then raised the issue regarding the treatment of the two petitioners. While one of the petitioners is receiving good treatment, the other petitioner is not, she stated. SG Mehta said that he would have intervened if the issue was brought to his notice through a phone call. "I am not going to burden the Solicitor with phone calls," Grover said. The bench orally told the SG to do the needful regarding the treatment.

Grover further requested that an interim order be passed to preserve the ammunition logs relating to the incident. She said that the Supreme Court's interim order of July 28, which directed the preservation of CCTV, drone/body camera footage and wireless logs, does not specifically refer to ammunition logs. The SG said, "Whatever is required for investigation will be preserved."

Justice Bagchi said that a bona fide protest may turn violent at any point, perhaps due to infiltration of anti-social elements, and "graded responses" of the law enforcement might be sometimes necessary. The SG said that the forces may to be take on the spot decision based on the events.

As per the petition, Singh and Mansoor witnessed that the RAF had suddenly fired a pump action gun, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, which 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.

Appearance: Advocates Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, and Devika Tulsiani (for petitioners)

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others