The Supreme Court on Thursday signalled that it is prepared to examine serious allegations surrounding the reported use of pellet guns during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)’s ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest against the NEET paper leak controversy, while directing the Delhi government to ensure immediate medical treatment for those who claim they were injured during the demonstrations.
The matter came before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which heard a petition filed by two individuals alleging they suffered pellet injuries during the July 20 protest in the national capital. Former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad has also joined the petition, which seeks judicial intervention over the use of pellet guns against civilians and demands compensation for those allegedly injured during the police action.
While the petition initially requested a complete prohibition on the use of metallic pellet guns in crowd-control operations, the Supreme Court indicated that such a sweeping prayer may not align with the existing legal framework governing police action during law-and-order situations.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed during the hearing that existing police regulations permit the use of pellet guns under exceptional circumstances as part of a graded response to escalating violence. He pointed out that unless the petition directly challenges the validity of those rules, simply asking for a blanket ban would be legally difficult.
“Police regulations permit in exceptional cases. You have to challenge as ultra vires,” Justice Bagchi remarked, questioning whether the petition appropriately addressed the legal foundation of the existing rules.
The court, however, clarified that it is not unwilling to scrutinize how pellet guns are deployed in individual incidents. Justice Bagchi observed that the court would examine whether the graded response framework justifies the use of pellet ammunition in specific situations, particularly when security forces already possess other methods of crowd control.
The Bench emphasized that the question before the court is not merely whether pellet guns exist within police regulations, but whether their deployment in a particular incident meets the standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality expected in a democratic society.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also appeared to broaden the scope of the discussion beyond the immediate allegations. Referring to claims of excessive force during the protest, the CJI suggested that the petition may be better framed around establishing judicial guidelines governing the circumstances under which pellet guns can be used.
“In light of the alleged excessive use, the prayer should be that the court lays down a protocol regarding the use,” the Chief Justice observed during the proceedings.
That observation could become significant if the court eventually decides to frame broader principles governing crowd-control measures across the country rather than limiting its examination to a single protest.
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel argued that not all pellet ammunition is identical. The advocate explained that authorities may use rubber, plastic, or metallic pellets depending on operational requirements, but alleged that metallic pellets had been recovered from the bodies of injured protesters following the July 20 clashes.
The petitioners argued that the nature of the gathering should determine whether such force is justified.
“There can be rubber, plastic and metallic pellets. These were metallic and recovered from the bodies. Nature of the crowd will determine the use of this as well. Was it a violent mob? No. These metallic pellets were fired,” the advocate submitted before the Bench.
The lawyer further argued that there is no publicly available standing order issued by Delhi Police specifically mandating the use of pellet guns during crowd-control operations. The court was urged to direct authorities to place any such operational guidelines on record if they exist.
“I am sure Union or NCT does not want to fire pellets at students,” the counsel added while questioning the necessity of such force during the protest.
Alongside the legal arguments, the Supreme Court issued immediate relief by directing the Delhi government to provide appropriate medical treatment to the injured petitioner and other similarly placed individuals who may have suffered injuries during the protest.
The Bench also instructed the Central government to preserve the ammunition log maintained by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed near Jantar Mantar during the demonstrations. That direction is likely to play an important role if the court later examines the precise nature of force used by security personnel during the operation.
The July 20 protest had been organized by the Cockroach Janata Party as part of its nationwide campaign against alleged irregularities in the NEET examination process. Thousands of students and supporters gathered in New Delhi demanding accountability over repeated examination controversies and seeking reforms to the country’s recruitment and examination systems.
The protest later witnessed clashes between demonstrators and security personnel, leading to allegations of excessive force by police and paramilitary units deployed in the area.
In the days following the confrontation, several individuals claimed they had sustained pellet injuries. Among those publicly identified were an Outlook journalist, 19-year-old Sahil Lochab, and 25-year-old Shaikh Irshad Mansoori, all of whom alleged they suffered wounds consistent with pellet impacts.
These allegations triggered widespread political debate, particularly after Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused the government of using excessive force against students. His remarks intensified demands from opposition parties for an independent investigation into the handling of the protest.
The government, however, has consistently denied that pellet guns were fired during the operation.
Union Minister Jitendra Singh rejected allegations that security forces opened fire on protesters. Speaking in Parliament earlier this week, he stated that no firing took place and maintained that only tear gas had been used. He also noted that decisions regarding the deployment of such crowd-control measures are taken by executive magistrates rather than political leaders.
BJP MP Sambit Patra similarly dismissed allegations that bullets were fired, accusing Rahul Gandhi of spreading misinformation about the events surrounding the protest.
The controversy has nevertheless continued because photographs, videos, eyewitness accounts and medical claims circulating after the protest have raised questions about what equipment was actually deployed during the police action.
Pellet guns are specialized weapons that discharge small projectiles using compressed air or other mechanisms instead of conventional gunpowder. Depending on the ammunition used, they may fire rubber, plastic, or metallic pellets. Although pellet-based systems are employed by law enforcement agencies in certain crowd-control situations, their use has remained controversial because of the risk of severe eye injuries, permanent disability, and other lasting physical harm.
Reports indicate that pellet guns and shock batons formed part of the standard crowd-control equipment carried by the Rapid Action Force personnel deployed alongside Delhi Police during the July 20 demonstrations. Whether those weapons were actually used against protesters now appears set to become a central issue before the country’s highest court.
The Supreme Court’s decision to preserve official ammunition records while simultaneously ensuring treatment for injured individuals suggests that it intends to carefully examine both the factual circumstances surrounding the protest and the broader legal principles governing the use of force during public demonstrations. If the court ultimately formulates nationwide guidelines on pellet gun deployment, the outcome could influence future policing standards and shape how law enforcement agencies respond to protests across India.