Delhi Protesters Move Supreme Court Seeking Nationwide Ban on Pellet Guns After Alleged Injuries During Demonstration
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a nationwide ban on the use of pellet guns for crowd control after protesters alleged that metallic pellets were fired during the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” demonstration in New Delhi. The plea has been submitted by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad along with two protesters who claim they suffered pellet injuries during the police action. The petition urges the court to declare the use of pellet guns against civilians unconstitutional and to direct authorities to permanently decommission the weapons for policing public protests.
According to the petition, the two injured protesters sustained serious facial and eye injuries allegedly caused by metallic pellets during the dispersal of demonstrators. The petitioners argue that the use of such weapons violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, contending that crowd-control measures must adhere to the principles of necessity, proportionality and accountability. Besides seeking a ban, the petition also asks for compensation for those injured and an independent judicial or court-monitored investigation into the alleged use of pellet guns.
The legal challenge comes amid an intensifying national debate over the police response to the July 20 protest. Organisers and several participants have alleged that security personnel used excessive force, including pellet guns, lathi charges and tear gas, leaving dozens injured. Medical records of some protesters have reportedly documented pellet-like injuries, strengthening demands for an independent inquiry into the incident.
Delhi Police, however, have categorically denied using pellet guns during the protest. Officials have described the allegations as “false and misleading” and stated that the Delhi Police do not possess pellet guns in their standard arsenal. Authorities maintain that only legally permitted crowd-control measures were employed to prevent protesters from breaching security arrangements in the national capital.
The petition revives a long-running controversy surrounding pellet guns in India. Their use in Jammu and Kashmir during the 2016 unrest drew widespread criticism after thousands of civilians suffered injuries, including permanent eye damage in many cases. Human rights organisations, medical professionals and legal experts have repeatedly questioned whether pellet-firing weapons can truly be considered “non-lethal,” pointing to documented cases of blindness, severe facial injuries and fatalities.
The petitioners argue that the alleged deployment of pellet-firing weapons in Delhi represents an expansion of a controversial crowd-control method beyond conflict-prone regions into civilian political demonstrations. They contend that if such practices are permitted without judicial scrutiny, they could have a chilling effect on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and protest. The plea therefore seeks comprehensive national guidelines governing the use of force during public demonstrations in addition to a complete prohibition on pellet guns.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether the petition raises substantial constitutional questions regarding the permissible limits of force by law enforcement agencies. Its decision could have implications extending beyond the July 20 incident, potentially influencing future policing standards, accountability mechanisms and crowd-control policies across India. The case also unfolds against the backdrop of ongoing political controversy over the treatment of student and civil society protesters, making it one of the most closely watched legal challenges arising from the recent demonstrations.
The proceedings are likely to draw significant attention from civil liberties groups, policing experts and governments, as the court weighs competing concerns of maintaining public order and safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the petition has reignited the national conversation over the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of democratic freedoms during public protests.
