Supreme Court’s Verdict on Pellet‑Gun Use in Crowd Control
The Supreme Court on 30 July 2026 observed that the use of pellet guns by police is permissible only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ as part of a graded response. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, did not specify what qualifies as ‘exceptional’ and did not summon the Union government for an explanation.
Key Developments
- The court rejected a blanket ban on pellet guns, preferring case‑by‑case scrutiny.
- It highlighted the risk of ‘hijacking’ genuine student protests by malicious elements.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi urged the government to equip police with protective gear to allow a cooling‑off period before using force.
- The petition, filed by ex‑IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and two injured protestors, seeks to ban kinetic metallic pellets.
- The bench asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to place on record any standard operating procedures for pellet‑gun deployment.
Important Facts
On 20 July 2026, the Rapid Action Force used pump‑action guns that released splinter‑like pellets at protestors leaving Jantar Mantar. The protest, led by the Cockroach Janta Party, demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over exam‑paper leaks. Two victims, Prashant Kumar Singh and Shekh Irshad Mansoori, were injured despite raising their arms in surrender.
The court previously ordered preservation of CCTV, body‑cam, drone footage and police communication logs. Advocate Vrinda Grover requested additional logs on weapons, ammunition and RAF deployment for the July 20 incident.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the judiciary’s stance on crowd‑control measures is vital for GS‑2 (Polity) – it illustrates the balance between maintaining public order and protecting constitutional rights such as peaceful assembly. The discussion on ‘graded response’ and protective gear links to debates on police reforms, a recurring topic in the UPSC syllabus. The case also touches upon the role of GS‑1 (History) in tracing the evolution of protest management in India, and GS‑4 (Ethics) in evaluating the moral dimensions of state‑inflicted violence.
Way Forward
- Formulate clear guidelines defining ‘exceptional circumstances’ for pellet‑gun use.
- Mandate regular training on the graded response model and non‑lethal alternatives.
- Equip frontline police with helmets, shields and communication devices to create a decision‑making buffer.
- Ensure transparent documentation of all crowd‑control operations, including weapon logs and video evidence.
- Strengthen judicial oversight by requiring periodic review of police protocols in line with constitutional safeguards.
These steps can help align law‑enforcement practices with democratic principles while minimizing the risk of excessive force.