Two individuals sustained injuries during a protest in Delhi when security forces reportedly fired pellet guns at demonstrators, prompting a legal challenge before the Supreme Court demanding a ban on the use of such weapons against civilians. The incident occurred on July 20 during a protest organized by the Cockroach Janta Party, which marched toward Parliament to demand the resignation of former Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over allegations of misconduct in competitive exam administration. The protest followed a broader agitation that began on June 6, when activists initiated a demonstration at Jantar Mantar, leading to widespread unrest across the country. The two petitioners, Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoor, were injured by metallic pellets fired by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) at Connaught Place during the protest. According to the petitioners, the attack occurred despite the protesters having raised their hands in apparent surrender, with no prior warning or use of water cannons to disperse the crowd. The injured individuals were taken to hospital, where they received treatment but remain with pellets embedded in their bodies. The petitioners argue that the use of pellet guns against civilians violates constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. The petitioners, led by former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad, claim that pellet guns are unsuitable for dispersing peaceful gatherings due to their unpredictable trajectories and potential for causing severe harm. They cited the 2020 United Nations guidelines on less lethal weapons, which caution against their use against crowds. The petitioners further stated that these weapons, often labeled as "non-lethal," can inflict fatal injuries, particularly to vital organs, when deployed in close proximity to demonstrators. Medical experts have warned of the long-term consequences of pellet injuries, emphasizing that the severity of harm depends on factors such as the point of impact, firing distance, and the type of material used. Some victims have suffered permanent disabilities, including blindness, paralysis, and post-traumatic stress disorder. One individual, Sahil Lochab, faces the risk of losing vision in his right eye, according to his family, who claim the pellets retrieved from his injuries were made of metal. Doctors have noted that injuries to critical areas such as the spine, nerves, and eyes can lead to irreversible damage, chronic pain, or loss of function. During hearings, the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and expressed concern over the excessive use of force by security personnel. A bench led by the Chief Justice remarked that self-discipline is essential to the democratic process and that the state must ensure that its response to protests adheres to constitutional norms. However, the government maintains that pellet guns were not used during the incident, asserting instead that non-lethal munitions, such as plastic pellets, and tear gas were employed. The Delhi Police has similarly denied the use of pellet guns, stating that tear gas alone was deployed. The controversy has sparked political discourse, with opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi engaging directly with victims to highlight the issue. Medical professionals and legal advocates continue to push for stricter regulations on the use of pellet guns, arguing that their deployment against civilians poses unacceptable risks. As the case unfolds, the court's stance on the legality and ethical use of such weapons will likely shape future policies governing public order maintenance.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
India
![[EDITORIAL] Impartial justice — ‘yan ang sinagasaan ng ‘trolling’ ni Pia Cayetano](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2026%2F07%2FIMG_9942-scaled.jpeg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
