Supreme Court Refuses Immediate Blanket Ban on Pellet Guns Following Delhi Protests, Issues Notice to Centre on Yashovardhan Azad's Plea Hearing a petition filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and injured protesters, the Supreme Court stated that a complete ban on pellet guns requires challenging the underlying statutory provisions authorizing their use. The controversial use of pellet guns by security forces during a recent demonstration at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi has escalated to the Supreme Court of India. The incident, which resulted in injuries to two protesters, has rekindled intense public debate regarding police crowd control tactics and fundamental human rights. Senior former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer and intelligence expert Yashovardhan Azad, alongside two individuals directly injured by pellet firings, moved the apex court seeking judicial intervention. During preliminary proceedings, the Supreme Court underscored that a total, nationwide ban on pellet guns cannot be decreed unless the statutory provisions that empower police to utilize them under specific circumstances are explicitly challenged and struck down. However, the bench made it clear that any specific instance involving alleged misuse or excessive force remains fully open to thorough judicial inquiry. Petition Demands and Details of Injuries from the Jantar Mantar Protest The petition preferred by Yashovardhan Azad and the affected victims urges the Supreme Court to mandate a comprehensive or partial prohibition on metallic pellet projectile weapons during civilian demonstrations. The petitioners submitted that while security agencies classify these weapons as "less lethal," their deployment from close quarters frequently inflicts catastrophic, life-altering injuries to critical human organs, including the eyes and head. Citing the recent Jantar Mantar gathering, the plea highlighted the case of a 19-year-old youth who suffered severe ocular trauma after being hit by metallic pellets. According to the petitioners, such severe consequences underscore the inherently dangerous nature of these projectiles, demonstrating that their deployment against unarmed citizens violates basic safety norms. Legal Scrutiny Under Article 21 and Remarks by CJI Surya Kant's Bench The matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. Addressing the core legal contentions, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that merely demanding a prohibition on a specific weapon does not suffice under constitutional jurisprudence. The bench pointed out that if petitioners seek an absolute prohibition on pellet guns, they must formally challenge the statutory rules and police manuals that authorize law enforcement agencies to deploy non-lethal and graded force during extraordinary public order breakdowns. Justice Bagchi emphasized that if an established regulatory framework permits graded response including pellet projectiles, the petitioners bear the burden of proving that such statutory authorization infringes Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Notice to Central Government and RAF, Mandate to Preserve Ammunition Evidence Taking note of the grievances, the Supreme Court issued formal notices to the Union Government and the Inspector General of Police of the Rapid Action Force (RAF). In a significant evidentiary directive, the bench ordered authorities to meticulously preserve the complete record of all ammunition utilized by the RAF during the CJP demonstration at Jantar Mantar. This preservation order aims to ensure that if a judicial probe or forensic assessment is ordered subsequently, the physical and documentary evidence regarding the force deployed remains intact and untampered. Invocation of UN Guidelines on Law Enforcement Weapons To reinforce their arguments, counsel for the petitioners cited international law enforcement standards, specifically referencing the United Nations Guidelines on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement. The petitioners highlighted that international standards explicitly advise against utilizing metallic pellet projectiles for general crowd dispersal due to their unpredictable trajectory and high risk of indiscriminate harm. They argued before the bench that the indiscriminate firing of metallic pellets fails the constitutional trifecta of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness mandated for any state action restricting civil liberties. Court's Perspective on Police Powers and Graded Response Needs While considering the petitioners' concerns, the Supreme Court also recognized the complex operational challenges confronted by law enforcement personnel during public disturbances. The bench remarked that state authorities require a spectrum of graded force options to maintain public peace effectively. Justice Bagchi noted that peaceful assemblies can rapidly devolve into violent riots or be infiltrated by hostile elements. In such volatile scenarios, restricting police to binary choices could paralyze public order management. Nevertheless, the court reiterated that if law enforcement officers exceed their statutory mandate or indulge in disproportionate force in any given instance, the judiciary stands ready to investigate and adjudicate those specific violations. Distinguished Career and Background of Petitioner Yashovardhan Azad The lead petitioner in this legal challenge, Yashovardhan Azad, is a highly distinguished veteran of India's civil services and security establishment. As a senior IPS officer, he served in numerous high-responsibility assignments across the country, notably holding key portfolios within the Intelligence Bureau (IB) where he rose to the position of Special Director. Following his retirement from government service, Azad has remained an active advocate for public policy reforms, civil liberty protections, and systemic police accountability. His decision to approach the Supreme Court reflects his ongoing commitment to establishing transparent, constitutionally compliant standards for law enforcement in democratic society. What this means for you • Across India: Establishes important legal clarity on law enforcement crowd control methods and constitutional safeguards under Article 21. • In Delhi: Ensures that RAF ammunition records from the Jantar Mantar protest are legally preserved for potential judicial scrutiny and accountability. Questions & Answers 1. Who filed the petition against pellet guns in the Supreme Court? Former IPS officer and ex-IB Special Director Yashovardhan Azad filed the petition along with two protesters injured in Delhi. 2. Why did the Supreme Court refrain from imposing an immediate blanket ban on pellet guns? The bench noted that a total ban is unfeasible without challenging the underlying statutory provisions that permit police to deploy graded force. 3. What specific orders were issued regarding the Jantar Mantar incident? The apex court issued notices to the Centre and the RAF IG, directing authorities to preserve all ammunition records from the Jantar Mantar protest. 4. What international framework was cited by the petitioners? The petitioners cited the UN Guidelines on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, arguing that metallic pellets fail constitutional tests of proportionality and necessity. https://trendkia.com/en/delhi/delhi-pradarshana-men-peleta-gana-istemala-para-suprima-korta-sakhta-yachikakarta-yashovardhan-azad-ki-arji-para-kendra-ko-notisa-12388 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.