The Supreme Court of India has taken strong note of the alleged deployment of pellet guns against student protesters during a demonstration at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized the urgent need to lay down a comprehensive and transparent protocol governing the use of non-lethal weapons for crowd control. Directly questioning the Central government, the bench sought clarification regarding the existing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) followed by law enforcement agencies when resorting to pellet guns. The petition highlights serious allegations that security personnel fired metallic pellets instead of rubber or plastic variants, causing injuries to peaceful demonstrators.
Arguments Over Metallic Pellets and Lack of Standing Orders
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover presented crucial physical and procedural details before the court. She asserted that metallic fragments were surgically recovered from injured students, confirming that high-impact metal pellets were used during the policing action. Grover pointed out that while security forces have access to plastic and rubber pellets for crowd dispersion, the use of metallic ammunition represents an extreme measure. She argued that Delhi Police lacks any valid Standing Order mandating or legalizing the use of metallic pellets against student gatherings, adding that if any such administrative order exists, the government must formally present it before the bench.
Judicial Review and the Principle of Graded Force
Analyzing the legal framework surrounding crowd management, Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that police manuals permit a graded response based on the evolving nature of a public gathering. Justice Bagchi observed that as long as law enforcement rules provide a stepped escalation of force, including firearm authorization under extreme conditions, the utilization of pellet guns cannot automatically be categorized as arbitrary unless the underlying statutory rules are challenged. Nevertheless, the bench clarified that the judiciary maintains full authority to review specific instances of force. Justice Bagchi highlighted that peaceful student protests demand non-violent handling and that law enforcement should be equipped with adequate protective gear to avoid relying on pellet guns altogether.
Historical Colonial Context and RTI Documentation
The court proceedings featured a historical reference when Justice Bagchi cited a past rule from the Calcutta High Court jurisdiction that once permitted firing at the chest to conserve ammunition. The Solicitor General remarked that such a provision likely dated back to the colonial era, with Justice Bagchi confirming that the rule was subsequently repealed. Building on administrative guidelines, Vrinda Grover informed the court about a key document obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application from the Bureau of Police Research and Development (DPRD). Reacting to this submission, Justice Bagchi stated that any official police guidance document must be maintained in formal archives, noting that its absence from public records would reflect an inappropriate administrative state of affairs.
Directives to Preserve Security Logs and Medical Records
Addressing the immediate requirements of the case, the bench headed by CJI Surya Kant issued specific directions to both the Central government and the Delhi administration. The Supreme Court mandated that all duty logs, armory registers, ammunition issuance files, and dedicated pellet gun logbooks corresponding to the deployment of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) in New Delhi on July 20, 2026, must be preserved. Furthermore, the court ordered authorities to preserve all hospital records regarding injured students, noting that two individuals had been rushed to Lady Hardinge Hospital following the incident. Instructing the petitioners to submit a modified prayer, the court scheduled the next hearing for August 3.
