Supreme Court Seeks RAF Ammunition Log, Says Pellet Guns May Be Used Only in Exceptional Situations
The Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that the use of pellet guns by law enforcement cannot be completely prohibited if they are deployed in genuinely exceptional situations. While hearing a petition seeking a nationwide ban on metallic pellet ammunition for crowd control, the Court observed that existing policing guidelines permit such weapons only in rare and extraordinary circumstances rather than as a routine means of dispersing protests.
The Bench simultaneously ordered the Central Government to preserve and produce the ammunition log maintained by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) during the July 20 protest at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The judges also sought the relevant Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) governing the deployment of pellet guns, signalling that the Court intends to closely examine whether the force used during the protest complied with established legal and operational norms.
The case arises from a Public Interest Litigation filed after several protesters reportedly sustained injuries during the Jantar Mantar demonstration. The petitioners have argued that metallic pellet ammunition is inherently dangerous for civilian crowd control and sought a complete judicial prohibition, contending that such weapons pose an unacceptable risk of permanent injury, particularly to the eyes and face.
However, the Supreme Court questioned whether a blanket ban would be legally sustainable. Referring to the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) guidelines, the Bench noted that pellet guns remain an approved option for law enforcement in exceptional circumstances, suggesting that the real issue may be whether the prescribed conditions for their use were satisfied in this specific instance rather than whether the weapon should be outlawed altogether.
The direction to preserve the RAF ammunition register is significant because it could establish precisely what type of ammunition was issued, how much was used, who authorised its deployment and whether officers acted within approved protocols. Such records may become key evidence as the Court evaluates allegations of excessive force during the protest.
The controversy has intensified following reports of internal scrutiny within the CRPF and RAF over the handling of the protest. While official reviews have maintained that personnel acted under authorised procedures in response to the law-and-order situation, critics, opposition leaders and civil rights groups have demanded greater accountability and questioned whether less harmful alternatives could have been employed.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of pellet guns themselves. Instead, its present focus is on ensuring that documentary evidence is preserved and determining whether the deployment of force during the Jantar Mantar protest complied with constitutional safeguards, statutory requirements and established policing standards. The matter is expected to continue with further examination of the operational records and government guidelines.
