At one point, a particular issue dominated the headlines: the use of pellet guns during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protests. This issue has been generating heated debate. Rahul Gandhi also issued a statement regarding this, stating that students should receive justice and urged the Supreme Court to form a special committee, demanding a completely impartial investigation under Supreme Court supervision. But now, significant news is emerging regarding this issue. The Supreme Court has heard the matter and, in its hearing, has declared the demand to ban the alleged use of metallic pellet guns during the student protests at Jantar Mantar as impractical.
The Supreme Court stated that the use of pellet guns cannot be completely banned to control violent mobs. The Court has stated that the SOP for conducting protests will provide clarity regarding the use of pellet guns, taking into account the circumstances.
The Supreme Court heard a petition filed in Delhi against the use of pellet guns by the Rapid Action Force during the Parliament March. The petition was filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and two others, Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. They allege that on July 20th, a peaceful protest was being held regarding the paper leak. During this protest, the Rapid Action Force (RAF) used pellet guns against students, injuring several students. This petition was filed in response to this. Several injured students are receiving treatment and undergoing surgery. A student has been admitted to Lady Hardinge Medical College. Medical reports indicate that several pellets were found in their bodies, and they have been surgically removed.
These questions arose in the court
During the same hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer, Vrinda Grover, raised the issue of a victim not receiving proper treatment. The Supreme Court took note of this and strongly urged the Delhi government to ensure the injured receive adequate medical care.
What was the bench’s decision?
The full bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, heard the matter. During the hearing, the court stated that the demand for a complete ban on the use of pellet guns was impractical. They argued that even peaceful protests often have the potential to turn violent, so a complete ban on pellet guns cannot be imposed. Justice Bagchi stated that security forces sometimes have to manage the situation based on specific circumstances.
The court also stated that the rules require security forces to use pellet guns in special circumstances. However, the petitioner’s lawyer stated that they are demanding a ban on metal pellets, suggesting that security forces could use plastic or rubber pellets instead. The judge stated that this matter would be considered. The court also asked the government to present its regulations governing the use of pellet guns. It also directed the preservation of all records of the July 20th demonstration.
