Ex-IB Officer, Injured Protesters Seek Ban on Pellet Guns in Supreme Court

A significant legal challenge has emerged in India's Supreme Court as a former Intelligence Bureau (IB) Special Director, along with individuals who sustained injuries during protests, have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding a complete ban on the use of pellet guns for crowd control. The PIL, brought forth by individuals who experienced the 'ruthless' and 'grievous' consequences of pellet gun usage, argues that these weapons inflict severe and permanent harm, constituting a violation of fundamental human rights. The petition highlights specific incidents where protesters were allegedly targeted with pellet guns, leading to serious injuries. While official reports, such as a CRPF review mentioned in related articles, suggest that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were followed and the use of pellet guns was authorized in certain situations, the petitioners contest the justification and proportionality of such force. They argue that even within authorized use, the inherent nature of pellet guns leads to excessive and indiscriminate harm, particularly in a protest scenario where crowd dispersal is the objective. The involvement of a former senior IB officer lends considerable weight to the petition, bringing an insider's perspective on the operational aspects and potential misuse of such crowd-control measures. This adds a layer of credibility and urgency to the demand for a ban or, at the very least, stringent regulation. The petitioners are seeking judicial intervention to prevent future instances of severe injury and to hold accountable those responsible for authorizing or employing these weapons in a manner that causes undue suffering. This legal move is part of a broader national and international conversation surrounding the use of less-lethal weapons in crowd management. While hailed by authorities as necessary tools to maintain order and prevent escalation, human rights organizations and victims often point to their potential for causing severe harm, including blindness, permanent disfigurement, and even death. The Supreme Court's consideration of this PIL could set a significant precedent for the regulation of crowd-control technologies in India and may lead to a review of existing policies and guidelines. The petition specifically calls for a comprehensive review of the deployment and use of pellet guns by security forces. It emphasizes the need for accountability mechanisms and stricter oversight to ensure that any use of force is proportionate, necessary, and does not result in excessive harm. The legal battle underscores the tension between maintaining public order and upholding the rights and safety of citizens during demonstrations. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, as it has the potential to influence policing strategies and the protection of civil liberties in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest