Legal Scrutiny Follows Claims of Pellet Gun Use in July 20th Protests
Reports of pellet injuries during a recent march to Parliament have reignited the debate over crowed control methods. Experts analyze the legality of these weapons under new criminal codes and constitutional standards of proportionality.
The July 20 Incident and Procedural Disputes
Allegations of pellet gun use surfaced following a July 20, 2026, protest march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). A medical source at Lady Hardinge Medical College confirmed at least one demonstrator among 80 injured was treated for wounds consistent with pellets. While the Delhi Police labeled these reports misleading, suspicion has focused on the Rapid Action Force, a specialized CRPF unit.
Former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad noted that standard operating procedures require negotiation as a primary step, a phase he suggests was bypassed. This controversy follows similar patterns documented during 2024 farmer protests and earlier unrest in Manipur and Kashmir. Pellet guns, originally designed for hunting, fire cartridges that fragment into multiple metal fragments. R.K. Vij, former Director General of Police in Chhattisgarh, stated that law enforcement must follow a graded escalation: warnings first, followed by tear gas and batons, with firing reserved as a final measure.
Statutory Framework and Armed Forces Involvement
The classification of pellet guns depends on power output. Under the Arms Act of 1959, devices with muzzle energy below 20 joules are categorized as air rifles and exempt from standard licensing. Those exceeding this threshold are treated as regulated firearms.
Crowd dispersal is governed by Sections 148 through 151 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure. These rules include:
- Section 148: Authorizes Mayors, station house officers, or sub-inspectors to order the dispersal of unlawful assemblies.
- Section 149: Allows District Magistrates to requisition the armed forces for public security, provided they use the minimum force required to achieve dispersal.
- Section 150: Grants military officers the power to act independently in emergencies when communication with a Magistrate is impossible.
- Section 151: Immunizes officials acting in good faith from prosecution unless the State or Central Government grants explicit sanction.
Constitutional Proportionality and Judicial Outlook
Supreme Court senior advocate Vrinda Grover argues that police responses must be evaluated through the lens of legality, necessity, and proportionality. She contends that since the July 20 protesters were unarmed, the use of pellet guns constitutes excessive force. The Bureau of Police Research and Development manual emphasizes that crowds are composed of fellow citizens, not enemies, necessitating the least harmful intervention possible.
The judiciary has historically been hesitant to issue blanket bans. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court previously dismissed a petition to prohibit pellet guns, ruling that force is inevitable when authorities encounter violent mobs. However, the legal distinction remains sharp between managing a riot and suppressing the fundamental right to peaceful protest.
Source: The Hindu — National
