Pellet guns part of graded police response, says SC

What happened: Supreme Court’s view on pellet guns and “graded, step-by-step” crowd control

The Supreme Court said police use of pellet guns may be permissible only in “exceptional circumstances” during protests, but only as part of a graded, step-by-step approach to managing a civilian crowd. The Court did not list specific conditions that automatically make an incident “exceptional.”

The Supreme Court indicated that it would scrutinise individual incidents where pellet guns are used indiscriminately or arbitrarily, especially if such use violates regulations that prescribe graduated responses for crowd control. The Court also acknowledged the need for police to respond to student protests with non-violence rather than brutality.

A key concern in the Court’s reasoning was the risk that some actors could “hijack” a legitimate protest and push it into violence. The Court accepted that non-violence should guide police action for student agitation and expressions of dissatisfaction with government policy, while still recognising that protests can move into unlawful conduct when influenced by violent elements.

The Supreme Court asked the government to consider arming police personnel with defensive/protective gear. The Court’s idea was practical: protective gear can give police time to pause, assess the situation, and reduce reflexive violence against protesters.

The Supreme Court also sought details of any protocols used by the police to control unlawful assemblies. The Court described the petitioner’s prayer as vague and indicated that it wanted more precise amendments to challenge the rules that allow pellet guns. The Court noted the petitioner’s claim that there were no standing orders mandating pellet guns.