The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union government to preserve the ammunition log of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar during a protest by students against the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper leak. This directive comes as the apex court considers a plea seeking a complete ban on the use of metallic pellet guns in law and order situations.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that the Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, has sought the preservation of this log following submissions from senior advocate Vrinda Grover. The court also mandated that the Delhi government ensure the best possible medical treatment for individuals who sustained pellet injuries during the protest.
The case revolves around a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, along with two individuals who claim to have suffered pellet injuries during the July 20 protests. The PIL, instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution, argues that the use of wholly or partly metallic pellet ammunition fired from pump-action or projectile action guns is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional standards governing the use of force against civilian assemblies. The petitioners are seeking a nationwide prohibition on these weapons for crowd dispersal.
The Supreme Court indicated its readiness to examine the specifics of pellet gun usage during the July 20 protests. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, represented the Centre in the proceedings. The plea not only calls for a ban on the weapons but also seeks exemplary compensation, comprehensive medical treatment, and rehabilitation for all individuals allegedly injured by pellet gunfire during the demonstrations.
The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) has issued an advisory that permits the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances. However, the current judicial scrutiny aims to ascertain the appropriateness and proportionality of their deployment, particularly in contexts involving student protests and civilian gatherings. The use of pellet guns has been a contentious issue, with numerous reports of severe injuries and long-term consequences for victims across various protest scenarios in India.
The protest on July 20 was reportedly called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), though details regarding this specific group and its role in the protest were not elaborated upon in the court’s discussion. The primary focus of the proceedings remains the alleged use of force by law enforcement agencies and the resultant impact on individuals participating in peaceful demonstrations. The court’s intervention highlights the ongoing legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of less-lethal weapons by security forces in India.
The preservation of the ammunition log is crucial for the court to verify the types and quantities of ammunition used by the RAF, which could provide critical evidence in determining the extent of force employed. This step is seen as a significant move towards ensuring accountability and transparency in the handling of public order situations. The court’s examination of the BPRD advisory, alongside the specific events of the NEET protest, will likely shape future guidelines and regulations concerning crowd control methods employed by Indian police forces.
The individuals who have approached the Supreme Court have detailed the severe nature of their injuries, underscoring the potential for lasting harm from pellet gunshots. Their petition emphasizes the need for a judicial review of the existing protocols that allow for the use of such ammunition, particularly when dealing with unarmed civilians and students. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the rights of citizens to assemble and protest peacefully without facing disproportionate force.
The Supreme Court’s engagement with this matter signifies a deepening judicial interest in safeguarding fundamental rights while balancing the state’s responsibility to maintain law and order. The apex court’s careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented is expected to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the permissible limits of police action in managing public gatherings. The court’s directive for log preservation is a preliminary step in a potentially lengthy process of judicial review and policy reform.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
