The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30, 2026) said the use of pellet guns by the police in “exceptional circumstances” was part of a graded approach to break civilian protests.
The court, however, did not expand on which “exceptional circumstances” justified the use of pellet guns, nor did it ask the Union government for an explanation during the hearing.
At least 10 people injured by pellets on July 20, shows RTI response
“Police rules allow the use [of pellet guns] in exceptional circumstances. One of the graded responses is the use of pellet guns,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, one of the three judges on the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed orally.
Though the court “completely agreed” that the state must meet students’ protests with non-violence and not brutality, the Bench flagged the possibility of unscrupulous elements “hijacking” a bona fide students’ protest, driving it into a spiral of violence.
“We are completely in agreement with pleas of no-violence principle when it comes to agitation of students or persons expressing dissatisfaction with a government policy… But there is also the question of elements hijacking students’ protests. A protest must have started with a bona fide purpose, but it may end up as a vehicle for various ulterior purposes… The hijacking may even be intended to sabotage the bona fide protests,” Justice Bagchi said.
The police have to be prepared with a graded response, which includes the use of force, to every possible turn of events while dealing with a restive crowd, the court said.
Hesitant to consider a blanket ban on pellet guns, the court said it would examine particular incidents during which the police had used pellet guns indiscriminately or arbitrarily in violation of the standard regulations mapping graded responses for crowd control.
The court was hearing a petition filed by former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Yashovardhan Azad, and two pellet injury victims, Prashant Kumar Singh and Shekh Irshad Mansoori, primarily for a direction to ban the use of kinetic metallic pellets by law enforcement agencies on civilian assemblies.
The court said the prayer was “vague”, and asked advocate Vrinda Grover to amend the petition to challenge the rules which allow the use of pellet guns. Ms. Grover said she could not find any standing orders of the Delhi Police mandating the use of pellet guns. The court turned to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to place on record any standard regulations or protocol followed by the police in controlling unlawful assemblies.
Justice Bagchi sounded out the government on the need to arm the police with protective gear. This, he said, would give police personnel the confidence of a precious few seconds to pause and think before unleashing violence on protestors. The judge said every person, including the policeman confronting a crowd, was only human.
“The best way is to arm your police with defensive gear. That gives them the confidence to ponder… Everyone is a human being. If someone comes with a lathi at you, whether it is a policeman or other, if you wear a helmet, you would take a few more seconds to gauge the situation before deciding the course of action. These aspects must also be included in this debate here,” Justice Bagchi said.
Two of the petitioners, Mr. Singh and Mr. Mansoori, were injured by pellets during the July 20 police action on crowds which had converged at Jantar Mantar for protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party demanding the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over rampant exam paper leaks.
Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel had fired pump-action guns, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets at fleeing protestors, many of whom had their arms raised in “surrender”, the petition said.
Ms. Grover urged the court to direct the Union government and the Delhi Police to preserve the duty logs, weapon and ammunition logs, and the register pertaining to the RAF deployment on July 20. These records were not part of the documents directed to be preserved in the court’s previous orders, the senior lawyer said.
The Bench had previously ordered the safekeeping of footage from CCTVs, body cams, and drones, and other video evidence, along with wireless and Police Control Room communications.
The court also directed the Delhi government to provide comprehensive treatment to Mr. Singh for his injuries.
Published – July 30, 2026 12:21 pm IST
