Are pellet guns legal for crowd control in India? | Explained
Source Entity
India Latest News: Top National Headlines Today & Breaking News | The Hindu
The Rapid Action Force (RAF) has acknowledged that its crowd control tactics during the CJP's 'Sansad Chalo' march violated standard training protocols. This internal admission follows reports of pellet gun injuries sustained by protesters, fueling a national debate on the use of non-lethal weapons.
Internal Review Confirms Protocol Lapses in RAF Crowd Control
Following the 'Sansad Chalo' march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on June 20, the Rapid Action Force (RAF) has initiated an internal reckoning regarding its operational conduct. Inspector General Seema Dhundhia, in a meeting with company commanders and commandants on July 22, explicitly stated that the 'force gradient'—the spectrum of escalating force used by law enforcement—was applied in a manner inconsistent with prescribed standards and established RAF training modules.
The Mechanics of Force Gradient and Operational Standards
In professional policing, the 'force gradient' is a critical framework designed to ensure that the level of physical intervention is strictly proportional to the threat posed by a crowd. By acknowledging that this gradient was misapplied, the RAF leadership has effectively conceded that the tactical response during the protest failed to meet the necessary threshold of proportionality. This failure to adhere to standard operating procedures has raised significant concerns regarding the oversight of specialized units tasked with maintaining public order near sensitive locations like the Indian Parliament.
Medical Evidence and the Controversy of 'Non-Lethal' Weapons
While the Delhi Police have denied the deployment of pellet guns, medical documentation from Lady Hardinge Medical College presents a conflicting narrative. Hospital records for protester Prashant Singh, among others, explicitly note 'multiple pellet injuries' on the upper limbs, chest, and inguinal region. The discrepancy between official denials and clinical findings has intensified the discourse surrounding the definition and deployment of 'non-lethal' weaponry. Protesters, including those identified as Sheikh Irshad Mansuri and Sahil Lochab, have reported severe physical trauma, challenging the narrative that these tools are safe for crowd dispersion.
Historical Context and the 2024 Precedent
This incident is not an isolated event but rather a continuation of a broader debate regarding the use of pellet guns in India. The weapons previously drew widespread condemnation during the 2024 farmers' protests. The recurrence of such injuries suggests a systemic reliance on methods that, while labeled non-lethal, carry a high risk of permanent injury or disability. The legal framework governing these weapons remains a point of contention for human rights advocates and legal experts alike.
Future Implications for Public Order Management
Moving forward, the RAF's admission is expected to trigger a comprehensive review of training curricula and field deployment strategies. The internal directive issued by the Inspector General serves as a tacit recognition that the current culture of crowd management requires stricter adherence to constitutional protections and humanitarian standards. The ability of the security apparatus to balance the necessity of maintaining order with the fundamental right to protest will remain a defining challenge for democratic governance in India.
Verification Required?