SC Directs Medical Care for Injured Protesters, Refuses Blanket Ban on Pellet Guns

New Delhi [India], July 30 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Delhi government to provide proper medical treatment to persons injured by the alleged use of pellet guns during a students' protest in the national capital.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan ordered, "Government of Delhi shall provide medical treatment to the injured petitioner or other similarly placed individuals."

The apex court was hearing a plea alleging the use of metallic pellet guns on students protesting at Jantar Mantar and other parts of Delhi.
During the hearing, the bench said that police rules permit the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances and said that unless the rules themselves are challenged, the use of such weapons cannot be considered illegal.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that if the law permits the police to use bullets in extreme situations where violence cannot be controlled through lathi charge or tear gas, the court would have to examine how the use of pellet guns could be prohibited altogether, particularly when an otherwise peaceful protest is hijacked by miscreants and turns violent.

"Police rules allow the use in exceptional circumstances unless you challenge the rules themselves. One of the steps of the graded approach is use of pellet guns," Justice Bagchi said.
The Chief Justice added, "In light of alleged excessive use, your prayer should be that the court lays down a protocol regarding the use."
Justice Bagchi also said authorities should equip police forces in a manner that avoids resorting to such extreme measures. "We are agreeable to a non-violent approach when there are protests by students. At the same time, hijacking of genuine protests by vested interests cannot be permitted. Arm your police in such a way that they do not have to resort to such actions," he told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The Solicitor General responded that personnel had been provided with protective gear.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the petitioners, submitted that the projectiles used were metallic pellets, recovered from the bodies of injured protesters. She argued that the use of such ammunition was wholly disproportionate as the gathering was not a violent mob.
Grover further submitted that there was no standing order of the Delhi Police mandating the use of pellet guns and urged the Union government and the Delhi government to place any such policy on record if it existed.
The Solicitor General submitted that there is no standing order of the Delhi Police mandating the use of pellets.
Grover also sought directions for the preservation of records relating to the deployment of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) in New Delhi on July 20, including duty logs, weapon and ammunition registers, particularly those concerning pellet guns.
She pointed out that an earlier preservation order by the court covered CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records and PCR call records, but not these deployment records.
The Solicitor General stated that the requested records could also be preserved. The apex court recorded the statement of the Solicitor General and said that the relevant records be maintained for the purposes of an effective investigation.
The bench then asked Grover to amend the plea and challenge the rules which allow use of pellet guns.

Retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, joined by two other individuals who alleged to have sustained pellet gun injuries during the recent protest during the march to Parliament NEET paper leak, had approached the Supreme Court against the use of pellet guns.
They sought a direction to phase out or prohibit the use of metallic or partially metallic kinetic projectiles fired from pump-action rifles and projectile-action guns (PAGs) for dispersing civilian crowds during law enforcement operations.
Azad, Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori also sought exemplary compensation for all those who suffered pellet injuries during the July 20 police action.
The petition also sought directions to ensure comprehensive medical treatment, long-term care, and rehabilitation for the victims.

The petition stated that 25-year-old artist Kumar was participating in the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" march as a peaceful protester when he allegedly sustained pellet injuries after Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel opened fire without any provocation or aggressive conduct on his part.
It further said that 26-year-old Mansoori was in Connaught Place on passport and visa-related work when he too was allegedly hit by pellets fired by RAF personnel, despite not engaging in any provocative or aggressive behaviour.
The petitioners contend that the erratic and unpredictable trajectory of pellets after they are fired makes pellet guns an inherently unsafe, arbitrary, and disproportionate means of crowd control, rendering them unsuitable for use against civilian gatherings.
The July 20 Parliament march, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) after weeks of protests and a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, drew thousands of students who attempted to march towards Parliament demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination paper leaks and broader reforms to the examination system.

As demonstrators attempted to breach several police barricades in central Delhi while marching towards Parliament, security personnel used tear gas shells and carried out a lathi-charge to disperse the crowd.
Several videos shared on social media purportedly showed protesters being manhandled by police.
The Delhi Police, however, defended its action, stating that force was used only after sections of the crowd turned violent and allegedly engaged in stone-pelting. 

Also Read: ‘I May Be Killed,...But My People’: Hasina Vows To Return To Bangladesh