New Delhi, 30 July 2026

Taking note of a plea on the use of metallic pellet guns during the recent students' protests against the NEET paper leak in Delhi, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to preserve the ammunition log of Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed at the Jantar Mantar.

Observing that police, as per the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) advisory, are empowered to use pellet guns in exceptional situations, the top court termed “vague” the prayer in the plea seeking a complete ban on such usage.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kantand justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, and asked the Delhi government to provide the best treatment to Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori and others who suffered pellet gun injuries during the 20 July protest here.

Former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and the two victims had moved the court seeking a complete ban on the use of metallic pellet guns to deal with law and order situations.

At the outset, Justice Bagchi said that the prayer for a ban on the use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies for civilian crowd dispersal was "vague" without challenging the police regulations, which permit the use of such weapons. Grover said it was not easy to find such regulations in the public domain, and urged the bench to direct the Centre to place them on record.

Singh and Mansoori reportedly suffered pellet injuries during the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on 20 July. Grover said as regards the petitioners, metallic pellets were used, and they were recovered from their bodies.

“I am not saying pellet guns should not be in the armoury of the RAF or not. Here it is different. They have used metallic pellets,” she said.

The bench said it was not averse to examining the use of pellets in a particular incident and the petitioners must show if it was permissible under a "graded approach". The senior lawyer said she was confining her reliefs to metallic pellets.

"There is no standing order of the Delhi Police which permits the use of pellets. That is why my difficulty arises, and I have to rely on BPRD. If there is such a standing order, the Union may place it on record. I am sure the Union and the Delhi Police do not wish to fire pellets on innocent youngsters,” she said.

“I could not find any such standing order of the Delhi Police at all," Grover said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the government will do whatever is necessary to assist the bench.

Grover said the top court on July 28 directed the preservation of CCTV, drone, body camera footage and wireless logs and did not specifically refer to ammunition logs of the RAF.

“Whatever is required for investigation will be preserved,” the solicitor general said.

The bench said a bona fide protest may turn violent at any point, perhaps due to the infiltration of anti-social elements, and “graded responses” by law enforcement might sometimes be necessary.

The forces may have to take on the spot decision based on the event, the law officer said.

Yashovardhan Azad approached the top court seeking a nationwide ban on the use of wholly or partly metallic pellet ammunition fired from pump-action or projectile action guns for dispersing civilian assemblies, contending that such weapons are inherently incompatible with constitutional standards governing the use of force.

The petition also sought exemplary compensation, comprehensive medical treatment and rehabilitation for all persons allegedly injured in the incident.

According to the petition, the RAF, deployed to assist the Delhi Police in crowd management during the protests, resorted to tear gas, lathi-charge and subsequently fired pump-action guns loaded with metallic pellets near Connaught Place. The petitioners alleged that no prior warning or announcement was issued before the escalation in the use of force and that several protesters suffered serious injuries, including eye injuries.

According to the plea, pellet guns, though often described as "less-lethal" weapons, disperse hundreds of projectiles over a wide area, making them incapable of precise targeting and creating a substantial risk of grave injuries to the eyes and other vital organs.

Such weapons fail the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness governing restrictions on the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), it contended.