The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, 30 July directed the Delhi government to ensure medical treatment for individuals injured during the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' student protests at Jantar Mantar, while simultaneously asking petitioners seeking a blanket ban on metallic pellet guns to first challenge the police regulations that permit their use in exceptional circumstances. The case has brought renewed scrutiny to the use of kinetic projectile weapons against civilian assemblies in the national capital.

What the Court Heard

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Yashovardhan Azad, former Special Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and former Central Information Commissioner, along with two individuals who allegedly sustained pellet injuries at the protest. Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the petitioners, clarified that the plea specifically concerned metallic pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile action guns — not rubber or plastic variants — which had allegedly been recovered from the bodies of two of the injured petitioners.

Court's Key Observations

Justice Bagchi noted that existing police regulations permit pellet guns as part of a graded response in exceptional circumstances, and told the petitioners their prayer for a blanket ban was 'vague' unless the validity of those regulations was directly challenged. 'We are not averse to examining use of pellets in an individual use. But you must show us if under the graded response use of pellets can be allowed,' Justice Bagchi observed.

The bench indicated that rather than an absolute prohibition, the petitioners could seek the court to lay down a protocol governing pellet gun use in light of allegations of excessive force. 'In light of alleged excessive use, your prayer should be that the Court lays down a protocol regarding the use,' the CJI Kant-led bench observed. The court also affirmed that peaceful protests should not be met with violence and stressed the need for a proportionate law enforcement response.

Government's Stand

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that police personnel deployed at the protest site were equipped with protective gear and that on-ground forces had to make decisions based on the situation prevailing at the time. Grover separately told the bench that she could find no standing order of the Delhi Police explicitly permitting pellet gun use, and urged the Centre to place any such order on record.

Notably, Justice Bagchi referenced an earlier case involving police regulations in Kolkata, where a rule prescribing where bullets should be fired had been struck down, signalling that the court could apply similar scrutiny here if the regulations are found to be arbitrary.

Medical Treatment and Record Preservation

The petitioners also raised concerns about the medical care of the injured. Grover submitted that while one petitioner was receiving adequate treatment, the medical records of another had not been released by the hospital. The apex court asked SG Mehta to look into the matter. In its interim direction, the bench ordered: 'Government of Delhi shall provide medical treatment to the injured petitioner or other similarly placed individuals.'

Grover further sought preservation of duty logs, weapon and ammunition registers, and records relating to the deployment of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) in New Delhi on 20 July, particularly those concerning pellet gun use. SG Mehta agreed to the preservation of relevant records, and the bench directed him to ensure compliance.

Background and Constitutional Challenge

The petition contends that the Rapid Action Force deployed pellet guns against protesters who had gathered at Jantar Mantar for the 'Sansad Chalo' march, with pellets allegedly penetrating the bodies of at least two individuals who required medical intervention. The petitioners argue that using such weapons against a peaceful civilian gathering is disproportionate and violates constitutional protections relating to life, liberty, and peaceful assembly. They have also sought compensation for all persons injured by pellets during the July 20 protest. The matter is expected to be heard again after the petitioners amend their plea to specifically challenge the relevant police regulations.