What happened (Supreme Court petition seeking a ban and compensation)
A Supreme Court petition requests a ban on the use of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles fired from pump-action/projectile-action guns (PAG) or pellet guns for crowd control. The petition is filed by retired Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad and two other alleged victims.
The petition argues that these weapons fail constitutional standards for state action, including necessity (a need to use the measure), proportionality (the measure should not be excessive compared to its aim), and reasonableness (the measure should be fair and not arbitrary). The petition also contends that the use of these weapons effectively constrains the freedom of assembly under Article 19(1)(b).
The petition requests exemplary compensation for injuries alleged to have been caused by pellet-firing during the July 20 protests. The Supreme Court has listed the petition for hearing along with other petitions already scheduled.
Background and earlier position (why crowd-control weapons raise constitutional issues)
Police use of force during protests raises constitutional questions because the Constitution protects the right to assemble peacefully. When police tactics are alleged to be excessive or indiscriminate, courts are asked to examine whether the state’s enforcement measures satisfy constitutional standards such as necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.
Related current affairs
- No excessive force used; trapped constable fired AK-47: Bihar Police to SC
- Congress leader demands a judicial inquiry into the police action during student protests
- Raf officer fired ‘anti-riot gun’ twice at protesters on senior cop’s order; allegation sought to be proved in court
- From Page One: Release all minors held over student protests: SC
- Yashovardhan Azad (byline/credential text)
- Protester suffers injuries from pellet guns; shock batons used