Use of Pellet Guns in Civilian Protests

Context

The Supreme Court ruled that pellet guns may not be banned unless the laws authorizing their use are found unconstitutional and that any deployment of force in the context of civilian demonstrations must adhere to the constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness.

Key Highlights

• The Supreme Court of India has recently raised some important observations in relation to the use of pellet guns for crowd control, stating that mere judicial directions cannot lead to a ban on pepper spray guns without first declaring the legislation permitting the use of the same unconstitutional. 
• The balance between public order and fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is reflected in the judgment.
• The Supreme Court is hearing petitions calling for a blanket ban on pellet guns in the context of civilian protests.
• The Court:
  • Gave notice to the Union Government and the Rapid Action Force (RAF).
  • Directed preservation of the log of the ammunition that was carried in the RAF during the protests.
  • Acknowledged that allegations of misuse should be investigated, but did not intend to immediately ban all of them.

Why Was the Petition Filed?

• The petitioners argued that:
  • The term “less-lethal” is used for metallic pellet guns but these are capable of causing:
    • Permanent blindness.
    • Serious organ damage.
    • Fatal injuries when fired at close range.
• The application to counter civilian assemblies is a breach of:
  • The right to life is guaranteed by Article 21.
  • International law relating to police.
• They sought:
  • Disposal of metal pellet guns.
  • Use of safer crowd-control.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

• If the law permits the use of pellet guns, they cannot be banned just by court order.
• The petitioners need to directly impugn the provisions of law permitting the use of pellet guns as being ultra vires in terms of Article 21.
• The Court made a distinction between:
  • Challenging the inappropriate use of a particular incident.
  • Wishing for a complete ban in India.
• Courts may consider if the use of force was:
  • Necessary.
  • Proportionate.
  • Reasonable.

Constitutional Principles Involved

• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
  • Respects the life and dignity of every person.
  • Force may only be used in an action conducted by a State that meets:
    • Fair procedure.
    • Necessity.
    • Proportionality.
    • Reasonableness.
• Article 19
  • Guarantees the right to peaceful assembly.
  • The State can make reasonable restrictions to ensure public order.
• Article 14
  • Upholds the rule of law.
  • Police action should be non-arbitrary and uniformly applied.

Court’s Concerns about Police Regulations

• The Court noted that:
  • Staff should implement a graduated approach to dealing with unlawful assemblies.
• Patients should only be pushed after:
  • Calling the assembly illegal.
  • Issuing warnings to disperse.
  • Using up the less harmful options.
• The Court asked why the standing orders and police guidelines are not published and spoke about the need to increase the transparency of the police.

International Perspective

• The petition cited UN guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement—which states that:
  • Careful not to use indiscriminate bullets on crowds with metallic projectiles.
  • When force has to conform to:
    • Necessity.
    • Proportionality.
    • Accountability.
    • Minimising risks of permanent injury.

Issues and Challenges

• No publicly available Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
• Problems determining who is responsible for excessive force.
• A danger of serious accidents when dealing with crowds.
• Need to balance:
  • Public order.
  • Human rights.
  • Police safety.
• Not clear what can and can’t be done with the metallic pellet ammunition.

Way Forward

• Examining current laws and regulations for pellet guns.
• Place police standing orders and crowd control procedures.
• Increase training of Human Rights compliant policing.
• Use non-lethal and “de-escalation” before resorting to force.
• Provide police officers with improved protective clothing, thereby minimizing the need for force.
• Set up separate mechanisms for investigation and accountability in the event of serious injuries at protests.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains PYQ

Q. Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment. (2022)

Download as PDF