Supreme Court Says Plea to Ban Pellet Guns Against Civilian Assemblies Is Vague Without Challenging Existing Guidelines
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that a petition seeking a blanket ban on the use of pellet guns for civilian crowd control appeared legally incomplete because it did not challenge the existing government guidelines that permit their use in exceptional situations. The Bench remarked that simply seeking a prohibition without questioning the validity of the underlying Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and policy framework would make it difficult for the Court to grant the relief sought.
The case stems from a Public Interest Litigation filed by former Intelligence Bureau officer Yashovardhan Jha Azad and two individuals who claim they were injured during the July 20 protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The petition argues that pellet guns, though often described as “less-lethal” weapons, can inflict severe and irreversible injuries, particularly to the eyes and face, making them unsuitable for civilian crowd dispersal.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the petitioners on whether they had specifically challenged the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) guidelines or other official protocols authorising pellet guns in exceptional circumstances. The Bench indicated that unless the legal basis permitting such weapons is itself under challenge, a judicial order imposing a blanket ban may not be legally sustainable.
At the same time, the Supreme Court reiterated that pellet guns cannot be treated as a routine crowd-control tool. The judges emphasised that their deployment, if at all, must remain confined to exceptional situations and must strictly comply with prescribed procedures and safeguards. This reflects the Court’s effort to balance public order requirements with constitutional protections for life and personal liberty.
In a significant procedural direction, the Court ordered the Centre to preserve the Rapid Action Force’s ammunition log relating to the Jantar Mantar protest. It also sought the relevant SOPs governing the use of pellet guns, indicating that it intends to examine whether the force used during the protest conformed to the approved operational framework.
The petitioners have sought not only a ban on pellet guns for civilian assemblies but also compensation and rehabilitation for those allegedly injured during the protest. They contend that metallic kinetic projectiles are inherently disproportionate and violate constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court has not expressed any final opinion on the legality of pellet guns. Instead, it has indicated that the matter raises broader questions about the validity of the governing policy, the limits of police powers and the proportionality of force used during public demonstrations. The case is expected to proceed after the Centre places the required records and operational guidelines before the Court.
