Pellet use not illegal, says Supreme Court :::::: At least four protesters were hit by RAF pellets on July 20 ::: "It can be challenged under Art 21"

 Pellet use not illegal, says SC; cites exceptional cases, offers tip on phaseout  

At least four protesters had reportedly been hit by RAF pellets during the July 20 march to parliament.  

The Supreme Court on Thursday prima facie indicated the use of pellet guns could not be banned but only restricted.

        Sahil Lochab "suffered" pellet injuries 

The court suggested the constitutionality of their use could be challenged under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty.  

“In exceptional cases police regulations permit their (pellet guns’) use… unless you challenge the rules itself. One of the steps of graded approach is the use of pellets…,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed.  

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notices to the Centre and the inspector-general of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) on a plea to preserve the pellet-use log book and ban the use of pellet guns. 

 “In the light of alleged excessive use, your prayer should be that court lays down a protocol regarding the use. If you intend to phase out pellet guns, then you will have to challenge the process as ultra vires of Article 21," Justice Bangchi said.

At least four protesters had reportedly been hit by RAF pellets during the July 20 march to parliament.

The court was hearing a public interest plea from former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and two July 20 protesters who suffered pellet injuries, Irshad Mansoori and Prashant Kumar Singh.  

It said the Delhi government should ensure that hospitals provide the necessary medical treatment to those who suffered pellet injuries.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for certain petitioners, said she was not opposed to law-enforcers’ use of pellet guns per se. But she claimed that personnel had used metal pellets on Gen Z paper-leak protesters which, she argued, was impermissible under the law.  

Grover argued that law-enforcing agencies could explore the use of plastic or rubber pellets instead of metal pellets, whose trajectory was unpredictable and which could cause serious damage to victims’ eyes and other organs.

Justice Bagchi, who hails from West Bengal, said: “In Kolkata there was a rule that bullets should be fired at the chest to preserve ammunition and not any other body areas — that rule was struck down. So, you have to show us rules where the use of pellets is arbitrary.”