Supreme Court Petition Seeks Nationwide Ban on Pellet Guns for Crowd Control After NEET Protest Crackdown

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking a nationwide ban on the use of pellet guns and pump-action guns for crowd control by law enforcement agencies. The petition has been filed by Yashovardhan Azad, a retired Intelligence Bureau Special Director and 1976-batch IPS officer, along with two individuals who claim to have been injured by pellet fire during the July 20, 2026 Sansad Chalo march in Delhi. The petitioners, represented by advocate Vrinda Grover, argue that pellet guns are fundamentally unsuitable for civilian crowd dispersal and that their use constitutes arbitrary, disproportionate, and unconstitutional force.

The Petitioners and Their Claims

Yashovardhan Azad, the first petitioner, is a recipient of the Police Medal and the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service. His involvement lends significant weight to the petition, as he brings decades of experience in law enforcement and internal security. The second petitioner, Prashant Kumar (25), an artist, states that he was present at the Sansad Chalo march on July 20 as a peaceful protester and received pellet injuries from firing by Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel without any provocation or aggression on his part. The third petitioner, Sheikh Irshad Mansoori (26), states that he was at Delhi's Connaught Place that day for passport and visa-related work, not even participating in the protest, when he received pellet injuries from RAF firing without any provocation.

The July 20 Sansad Chalo March

The Sansad Chalo march on July 20, 2026, was organised to protest against the rampant paper leaks that have undermined the credibility of higher education examinations in India, particularly NEET-UG 2026. During the march, Delhi Police, with the assistance of the CRPF's Rapid Action Force, used tear gas shells, lathi charges, and pellet guns to disperse the protesters. The petition alleges that around 4 to 4:30 PM that day, police and RAF personnel incessantly fired tear gas shells and resorted to lathi charges, and that RAF personnel fired pump-action guns without warning as protesters retreated, causing pellet injuries to multiple individuals. The broader NEET controversy has already been the subject of multiple Supreme Court hearings.

Why Pellet Guns Are Problematic for Crowd Control

The petition makes a detailed case for why pellet guns are unsuitable for crowd dispersal. First, pellet guns fire multiple projectiles simultaneously, making it impossible for the user to target a specific individual or body part. The trajectory of the pellets is unpredictable, and they can cause injuries to bystanders who are not part of the protest at all, as in the case of the third petitioner. Second, metallic or semi-metallic pellets can cause permanent injuries including loss of eyesight, a phenomenon extensively documented during the use of pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir since 2010. Third, unlike rubber bullets or tear gas, pellet guns produce injuries that are difficult to treat because the pellets fragment and embed in tissue. The petition contends that pellet guns lack official sanction under the Ministry of Home Affairs' approved Standard Operating Procedure for crowd management.

The Constitutional Framework

The petition invokes several fundamental rights. Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted to include the right to bodily integrity and freedom from excessive force by the state. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. The use of weapons that cause indiscriminate injuries against peaceful protesters, the petition argues, violates all of these rights. The petition also invokes the principle of proportionality, which requires that any use of force by the state must be proportionate to the threat faced. Since pellet guns are inherently indiscriminate, their use against peaceful crowds can never satisfy the proportionality standard. Individuals who suffered injuries have the right to seek victim compensation under the BNSS framework.

Relief Sought

The petition seeks several specific reliefs from the Supreme Court. It asks for a direction to decommission or ban the use of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles and pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile action guns (PAGs) for dispersing civilian assemblies by law enforcement agencies. It also seeks exemplary compensation for all persons injured in the July 20 police action, along with complete medical treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care for all victims. The petition further seeks the framing of comprehensive, binding guidelines for the use of force during crowd control that comply with international human rights standards.

The Hearing Schedule

The Supreme Court will take up the petition along with other petitions arising out of the NEET protests on August 3, 2026. The matter will be heard alongside PILs on police excesses during the protests, in which the Court has already ordered the release of detained minors and stayed coercive action against students. The convergence of these petitions means that the Supreme Court will have to address the broader question of how Indian law enforcement agencies handle protest situations, including the permissible weapons, the standards for use of force, and the accountability mechanisms when force is used. Those arrested during the protests should be aware of their legal rights under the BNSS 2023.

Key Takeaways

1. Former IPS officer and IB Special Director Yashovardhan Azad, along with two injured individuals, has petitioned the Supreme Court through advocate Vrinda Grover for a nationwide ban on pellet guns for civilian crowd control.

2. The petition alleges that RAF personnel fired pump-action guns without warning at retreating protesters during the July 20 Sansad Chalo march, injuring both participants and bystanders.

3. Pellet guns are inherently indiscriminate weapons whose projectiles follow unpredictable trajectories, making them incapable of targeting specific individuals, a requirement for any proportionate use of force.

4. The petition contends that pellet guns are not sanctioned under the MHA's approved SOP for crowd management, making their deployment by law enforcement agencies procedurally unauthorised.

5. The petitioners seek exemplary compensation and long-term medical care for all victims, as well as binding guidelines for use of force that comply with international human rights standards. Filing a writ petition under Article 226 is another avenue for those affected to seek relief from High Courts.

6. The Supreme Court will hear the petition on August 3, 2026, alongside other NEET protest petitions, including PILs on police excesses where the Court has already struck down degrading bail conditions in other cases.

7. The case could establish India's first comprehensive judicial framework on permissible crowd control weapons, with implications far beyond the NEET protests. The challenge to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act is another ongoing case that deals with the balance between state power and civil liberties during protests.