Petition seeks ban on metallic/pellet kinetic projectiles fired from police guns
A Supreme Court petition asks for a ban on metallic/pellet kinetic projectiles used for crowd control and seeks compensation for alleged injuries from the July 20 protests.
- Article 19(1)(b) protects peaceful assembly; a restriction must be justified by constitutional standards on both purpose and manner.
- The petition targets metallic or partly metallic projectiles, including pellet-fired projectiles, used when police control a crowd.
- The petition seeks exemplary compensation for injuries it alleges were caused by pellet-firing during the July 20 protests.
- The Supreme Court scheduled the petition for hearing alongside other matters already listed.
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).
USPC may frame the issue around whether police use of metallic/pellet kinetic projectiles for crowd control satisfies constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness, given Article 19(1)(b) protection for peaceful assembly. The dispute also raises the question of remedies, including compensation, when injuries are alleged from state action during protests.
Related dispatches
