The Supreme Court recently observed that the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances may form part of a graded response for crowd control. However, the Court also clarified that incidents involving arbitrary or indiscriminate use of pellet guns would be examined individually.
The issue is not limited to policing alone; it also raises important constitutional questions related to human rights, freedom of expression, and the State’s responsibility to maintain public order.
What are Pellet Guns?
A pellet gun is a firearm that fires multiple small metallic pellets instead of a single bullet. Once fired, these pellets spread in different directions and do not follow a fixed path.
As a result, pellet guns can cause severe injuries, especially to the eyes, leading to permanent vision loss in some cases.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
The Court observed that:
• Police rules permit the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances.
• Pellet guns may be used as part of a graded response for crowd control.
• The Court is not in favour of imposing a blanket ban at this stage.
• Any incident involving misuse or violation of established guidelines will be examined separately.
Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that:
The use of pellet guns violates the constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.
Using such weapons against peaceful protesters undermines democratic rights and civil liberties.
The Court’s Concern
The Supreme Court agreed that peaceful student protests should be handled with restraint rather than brutality.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that peaceful protests can sometimes be hijacked by disruptive elements, making it necessary for the police to maintain law and order through appropriate measures.
Issues Associated with Pellet Guns
The use of pellet guns has remained controversial because of:
• Risk of permanent eye injuries.
• Serious harm to civilians.
• Human rights concerns.
• Availability of less-lethal alternatives for crowd control.
Constitutional Perspective
The issue is linked to several constitutional principles:
• Article 19 – Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.
• The State’s responsibility to maintain public order.
A democratic society must strike a balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring public safety.
UPSC Prelims Focus
• Pellet guns are used for crowd control.
• They fire multiple metallic pellets.
• Their use is permitted only under exceptional circumstances.
• The Supreme Court has not imposed a blanket ban.
UPSC Mains Perspective
GS Paper II
Possible Question:
“Discuss the challenges of balancing crowd control measures with the protection of human rights in a democratic society.”
Key Takeaways
• Pellet guns are considered a less-lethal crowd control tool but remain controversial.
• The Supreme Court supports their use only in exceptional situations.
• Arbitrary or excessive use must be investigated.
• Human rights and public order should be balanced through accountable policing.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding pellet guns highlights the need to balance public order, constitutional rights, and police accountability. Democratic governance requires law enforcement agencies to act with restraint, transparency, and respect for human dignity while maintaining peace and security.
