The court said the police have to be prepared with a graded response, which includes the use of force, to every possible turn of events while dealing with a restive crowd
| Photo Credit:
The Supreme Court on Thursday said the use of pellet guns by the police in “exceptional circumstances” was part of a graded approach to break civilian protests.The court however did not expand on what these ‘exceptional circumstances’ were which justified the use of pellet guns, nor did it ask the Union government for an explanation during the hearing.“Police rules allow the use in exceptional circumstances. One of the graded responses is the use of pellet guns,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, one of the three judges on the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed orally.Though the court “completely agreed” that the state must meet students’ protests with non-violence and not brutality, the Bench flagged the possibility of unscrupulous elements “hijacking” a bona fide students’ protest, driving it into a spiral of violence.“We are completely in agreement with pleas of no-violence principle when it comes to agitation of students or persons expressing dissatisfaction with a government policy… But there is also the question of elements hijacking students’ protests. A protest must have started with a bona fide purpose, but it may end up as a vehicle for various ulterior purposes… The hijacking may even be intended to sabotage the bona fide protests,” Justice Bagchi said.The court said the police have to be prepared with a graded response, which includes the use of force, to every possible turn of events while dealing with a restive crowd.Hesitant to consider a blanket ban on pellet guns, the court said it would examine particular incidents during which the police had used pellet guns indiscriminately or arbitrarily in violation of the standard regulations mapping graded responses for crowd control.The court was hearing a petition filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, Prashant Kumar Singh and Shekh Irshad Mansoori, primarily, for a direction to ban the use of kinetic metallic pellets by law enforcement agencies on civilian assemblies.The court said the prayer was “vague”, and asked advocate Vrinda Grover to amend the petition to challenge the rules which allow the use of pellet guns. Grover said she could not find any Standing Orders of the Delhi Police mandating the use of pellet guns. The court turned to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to place on record any standard regulations or protocol followed by the police in controlling unlawful assemblies.Justice Bagchi sounded out the government on the need to arm the police with protective gear. This, he said, would give personnel the confidence of a precious few seconds to pause and think before unleashing violence on protestors. The judge said every person, including the policeman confronting a crowd, was only human.“The best way is to arm your police with defensive gear. That gives them the confidence to ponder... Everyone is a human being. If someone comes with a lathi at you, whether it is a policeman or other, if you wear a helmet, you would take a few more seconds to gauge the situation before deciding the course of action. These aspects must also be included in this debate here,” Justice Bagchi explained.Two of the petitioners, Singh and Mansoori, were injured by pellets during the July 20 police action on crowds which had converged at Jantar Mantar during the Cockroach Janta Party protests for the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the rampant paper leaks.The petition said the Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel had fired pump-action guns, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, at fleeing protestors, many of whom had their arms raised in “surrender”. Grover urged the court to direct the Centre and the Delhi Police to preserve the duty logs, weapon and ammunition logs and register pertaining to RAF deployment on July 20. The senior lawyer said these records were not part of the documents directed to be preserved in the court’s previous orders.The court also directed the Delhi government to provide comprehensive treatment to Singh for his injuries.The Bench had previously ordered the safekeeping of footage from CCTVs, body cams, drones and other video evidence along with wireless and PCR communications.Published on July 30, 2026
