Why in News?
· The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and pellet injury victims Prashant Kumar Singh and Shekh Irshad Mansoori, observed that pellet guns are part of the graded response available to law enforcement agencies in exceptional circumstances.
· The petition sought a complete ban on kinetic metallic pellet guns for crowd control, arguing that they violate constitutional guarantees of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness.
· The Court declined to impose a blanket ban but held that every instance of pellet gun use is open to judicial scrutiny if allegations of arbitrary or indiscriminate use arise.
Background
· Pellet guns are pump-action shotguns that fire cartridges containing hundreds of metallic pellets.
· They are categorised as less-lethal weapons, intended to disperse violent crowds without using live ammunition.
· India first deployed pellet guns extensively in Jammu and Kashmir in 2010, particularly during episodes of stone-pelting and civil unrest.
·
Example: During the 2016 Kashmir unrest following the killing of Burhan Wani, pellet guns were used extensively, leading to thousands of injuries and widespread eye trauma.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
· Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and protection against arbitrary State action => Police action must be reasonable, fair and non-discriminatory.
· Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): Guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully.
· Articles 19(2) and 19(3): Permit reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, sovereignty and integrity of India.
· Article 21: Guarantees the right to life, dignity and bodily integrity => Any use of force must satisfy constitutional standards of fairness, necessity and proportionality.
· Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Empowers police and Executive Magistrates to disperse unlawful assemblies + Requires the use of minimum necessary force.
· Police Manuals and BPR&D Guidelines: The Bureau of Police Research and Development recommends a graded response –
- Negotiation and persuasion + Public announcements + Barricading + Water cannons + Tear smoke + Lathi charge
- Less-lethal weapons such as pellet guns in exceptional circumstances
- Live ammunition only as the last resort
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
Pellet guns are part of graded police response: The Court recognised that police regulations permit pellet guns only in exceptional circumstances and therefore declined to prohibit them altogether.
- Significance: Reinforces operational flexibility for law enforcement while preserving judicial oversight.
No blanket prohibition: Rather than imposing a nationwide ban, the Court preferred examining whether pellet guns had been used contrary to established procedures.
- Significance: Ensures case-specific judicial review instead of blanket policy intervention.
Student protests should not face brutality: The Bench observed that peaceful student protests are part of democratic expression and should not ordinarily be met with excessive force.
- Example: The Court emphasised restraint during educational institution protests.
Recognition of violent infiltration: The Court acknowledged that peaceful demonstrations may be hijacked by anti-social or violent elements, requiring calibrated police intervention.
- Example: Violent incidents during otherwise peaceful protests have occurred during several mass agitations across India.
Accountability and transparency: The Court directed preservation of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) ammunition records and ensured medical treatment for injured protesters.
- Significance: Strengthens institutional accountability and evidence-based judicial review.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Violation of Necessity: Less harmful methods of crowd control such as negotiation, water cannons and tear smoke remain available.
Failure of Proportionality: Pellets disperse widely and injure protesters, bystanders, journalists and children indiscriminately.
Violation of Reasonableness: Permanent blindness and lifelong disability cannot be justified for dispersing civilian assemblies.
Violation of Fundamental Rights: The use of pellet guns infringes Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Doctrine of Proportionality: The Supreme Court has consistently held that restrictions on fundamental rights must satisfy the doctrine of proportionality.
- Components: Legitimate objective, rational connection, least restrictive alternative and balance between public interest and individual rights.
Human Rights Concerns
Serious bodily injuries: Pellet guns can cause permanent blindness, retinal detachment, facial fractures, internal bleeding, brain injuries and permanent disability
- Example: Hospitals in Srinagar documented hundreds of complex eye injuries during the 2016 unrest.
Chilling effect on democratic freedoms: Fear of severe injury discourages peaceful citizens from exercising their constitutional right to protest.
Impact on children and students: Medical evidence indicates that minors and young adults have frequently suffered irreversible eye injuries.
Psychological consequences: Victims often experience lifelong trauma, depression and reduced quality of life due to permanent disability.
- Medical Evidence: AIIMS Ophthalmology Team, soctors assisting hospitals in Srinagar reported globe rupture, retinal damage, permanent visual loss and multiple reconstructive surgeries
- Indian Journal of Medical Ethics concluded that pellet guns, despite being categorised as less-lethal weapons, can cause blindness, brain injuries and even death, particularly when fired from close range.
Data and Reports
2016 Kashmir Unrest: Government records and hospital data indicate around 3,000-6,000 civilians suffered pellet injuries, more than 1,000 eye injuries were reported and hundreds sustained permanent visual impairment.
Amnesty International Report (2017): ‘Losing Sight in Kashmir’
- Key findings: Widespread eye injuries, children among the victims and recommended ending the use of pellet-firing shotguns for crowd control.
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Reports (2018 & 2019): The reports raised concerns regarding excessive use of force, recommended independent investigations and called for compliance with international human rights standards.
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) advocates: Minimum use of force, videography of crowd-control operations, immediate medical treatment, independent inquiry into grievous injuries and deaths, compensation and rehabilitation for victims and international Standards
UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990): Law enforcement agencies should use force only when strictly necessary, apply proportional force, minimise injuries, respect human dignity and ensure accountability.
UN Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons (2020): States should avoid indiscriminate weapons, use trained personnel, maintain deployment records, provide immediate medical assistance and investigate every serious injury.
Committee Recommendations
Following the 2016 Kashmir unrest, the Ministry of Home Affairs Expert Committee recommended alternatives such as PAVA shells, Chilli grenades, Stun grenades, dye-marker projectiles and long-Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs). Several of these alternatives have since been introduced for crowd management.
Arguments Supporting Pellet Guns
Lower fatality risk: They reduce fatalities compared to conventional firearms.
- Example: Security forces argue pellet guns replaced live ammunition in several crowd-control situations.
Maintenance of public order: Useful against violent mobs attacking security personnel and public infrastructure.
Counter-insurgency utility: Provide an intermediate option in conflict-prone areas before resorting to firearms.
Operational flexibility: Facilitate calibrated escalation under the graded response framework.
Arguments Against Pellet Guns
Indiscriminate impact: Hundreds of pellets spread unpredictably and injure innocent civilians.
Permanent disability: Blindness and facial disfigurement are irreversible.
Constitutional concerns: Their use may violate Articles 14, 19 and 21 when disproportionate.
International criticism: Human rights organisations have repeatedly questioned their deployment against civilian protesters.
Declining public trust: Excessive force weakens confidence in democratic policing and the rule of law.
Important Judicial Precedents
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): Police reforms and institutional accountability.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Protection against abuse of police powers.
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012): Police action against peaceful assemblies must remain proportionate.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): Peaceful protest is a constitutional right subject to reasonable restrictions.
Way Forward
Enact a statutory framework clearly defining "exceptional circumstances" for pellet gun deployment.
Strictly implement the principles of necessity, proportionality and accountability.
Mandate body-worn cameras, videography and independent post-incident audits.
Expand the use of safer alternatives such as PAVA shells, water cannons and negotiation-based crowd management.
Fully implement the Prakash Singh police reforms to strengthen professionalism and operational accountability.
Ensure prompt medical treatment, compensation and long-term rehabilitation for victims.
Regularly train police personnel in de-escalation, negotiation and human rights-compliant crowd management.
Develop standard operating procedures with periodic judicial and legislative review to ensure consistency across States.
