PELLET GUNS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT NEED REVIEW

September 5, 2026

~R C Sharma

Let’s ask basic question to law enforcers, police in India, “Do they treat law enforcement as social service to society or a default bureaucratic duty to be executed mechanically”. Employment of Pump Action Gun (PAG) commonly called pellet gun on peaceful protesters in Delhi is picture-perfect example of mechanical discharge of duty without analyzing consequences on protesters in terms of lifethreatening injuries, how it psychologically conditions their attitude towards law enforcing instruments. Law enforcement to me is social service till remains within constitutional parameters, minimum use of force. Seventh United Nations Congress in its resolution 14 emphasizes that, use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials should be commensurate with due respect for human rights. Law enforcement requires graded and not sledge hammer response. Graded response must take in consideration, scale, volume, intensity, of protest and protesters. Was such analysis carried out by Delhi police while granting permission for peaceful protest seems doubtful considering post demonstration analysis and ten-point intelligence gathering standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by Delhi police. Preprotest intelligence helps police brass strategise requirements of man power, equipment and sequence of graded response, briefing, placement of personnel. These ingredients were either ignored or not considered in planning analysis as chaotic response demonstrated.

Use of pellet guns on peaceful student protesters brought whole gamut of pellet guns including the human rights angle into focus. So much so that senior retired police officer Yashovardhan Jha Azad along with two injured protesters has approached Supreme Court seeking complete ban on use of pellet guns. Pellet guns by basic construction are inherently erratic, inaccurate. Lethality depends upon the distance between protesters and firer. Short distance means less dispersal of pellets and more lethality vice-versa more distance means enlarged zone of dispersal and reduced lethality. There use for crowd control goes against democratic right to protest peacefully and human rights.Pellet guns in crowd control are highly lethal. Their use may be justified against antinational elements exploiting borders equipped with dangerous traditional tools like dah, lathis, spears and javelins.

On 20 July ,2026, Rapid Action Force (RAF), specialized wing of Central Reserve Police Force fired two rounds of pellet gun shots containing lead pellets on protesting students. Pellet guns earlier were used in 2010 and 2016 in Kashmir and on Eastern border by Border Security Force against anti-national elements. Use of pellet guns against peaceful protesters goes against RAF motto of “serving humanity and sensitive policing”, though more than Rapid Action Force personnel, it is police leadership which is responsible for ordering disproportionate use of force in the form of pellet guns.

As per hospital records obtained through right to information (RTI) from Safdarjung and Lady Hardinge Hospital at least ten people were treated for pellet injuries. Delhi Police initially denied use of pellet guns during July 20 march to Parliament. However general diary (GD) entry filed at Parliament Street police station on 22 July 2026 at 1:24 AM reveal that RAF fired two rounds from antiriot gun on the direction of Deputy Commissioner of police responsible for overseeing law & order. Several protesters suffered injuries to face neck, eyes, arms and one of students Sahil Lochab risks losing eye sight in whose case an FIR was lodged by police after intervention of leader of opposition (LOP). The FIR was filed on Friday ,21 August,2026 under section 118, voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons and 125 for endangering the life or personal safety of others of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023.

Strangely and surprisingly, Rapid Action Force in reply to an RTI from Sh Saket Gokhale, says that “allegation made in the application do not attract the exception relating to violation of human rights”. CRPF categorically says that three is no violation of human rights in its act of firing pellet guns and dangerous injuries to protesters. Its stance goes contrary to section 118 invoked in FIR. Pellet gun cartridges have lead pellets and when fired from close range may prove lethal causing permanent disability or even death. There have been instances of death caused by lethality of pellets Lead pellets pierce into skin and if not removed can cause tetanus if pellets carry bacteria into punctured wound leading to limb impairment and dangerous consequences for body. If fired from close quarter range, they may cause death. The wider debate now is whether use of weapon like pellet gun in policing, maintenance of law and order against peaceful protest by citizens, may be students, employees, senior citizens or any other section of society is justified.

Their use in Delhi against generation “Z” has started an intense legal, humanitarian and democratic debate. Calling pellet guns as non-lethal is oversimplified way of legalizing their use. Pellet gun injuries may cause permanent disability like blindness and extending up to death. UN recommends total prohibition on use of pellet guns for law enforcement and crowd control. BPR& D guidelines say that pellet guns are mandated strictly as “rarest of rare” last resort after all other graded response mechanisms fail.

Earlier Amnesty international has called indiscriminate use of pellet guns in Kashmir as “mass blinding crisis” when CRPF fired them in 2016 prompting MHA to form an expert committee to examine situation and committee ruled that pellet guns are to be used only in “exceptional, rarest of rare situations” only if protesters turn dangerously violent posing threat to life or endanger public safety. Nothing of that sort happened on 20 July. Question arises what prompted Deputy Commissioner of police to order use of pellet gun on peaceful protesters without meeting “rarest of rare” situation protocol. Democratic nations should have no space for them and efficacy cannot be only gauged by no mortality ignoring permanent disabilities.

There is urgent need for government to upgrade pellet guns from less lethal to lethal and not provide elbow room to law enforcement agencies to justify their use for crowd control. Government need to appreciate that such lethality causes infective physical and mental trauma not only upon victims but also upon family and society at large thus affecting not only individual but also society. There is need to inculcate professionalism in police leadership and mandate strict professional protocols on use of lethal force. Law enforcement is function of gauging necessity which help decide proportionality of graded response. Lethal equipment should have no place in crowd control. Though matter is pending in Supreme Court for complete ban on use of pellet guns in law enforcement duties. It is high time Ministry of Home Affairs revisits and reviews standard operating procedure and protocols on use of pellet guns.

The rarest of rare mandate is subjective leaves much room for subjective judgment based upon personal view point giving enough space for law enforcement agencies to justify lethal force. It will be appropriate and in fitness of things in the spirit of human rights, constitutional democracy and rule of law that ministry of home affairs declares total ban on use of pellet guns in law enforcement. The measure will improve democratic environment, since peaceful assemblies and protests are an integral part of democratic discourse, should be respected and protected. Unlawful but peaceful crowds must be dispersed using minimum force needed for the purpose, and wherever protests turn unmanageably violent lethal force should only be used as last resort after exhausting all graded response mechanisms.

As far as Delhi students protest of 20 July was concerned, Police was forced to resort to use of lethal force by its own doing since professional planning & preparations for handling and management were lacking including intelligence. Had effective graded mechanisms been in place and adequate, use of pellet guns was avoidable. High time government revisits use of pellet guns instead of waiting for Supreme Court nudge or judgment.