Story so far: At least one of the 80 protesters was injured in police action during the Parliament march called on Monday (July 20, 2026). Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) The injuries were caused by pellet guns, according to a source at Lady Hardinge Medical College, where the victim is undergoing treatment. Whereas Delhi Police has denied the use of pellet gun. And saying such claims are “false and misleading”, the allegations against the Rapid Action Force, a special quick response wing of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), are strong. This raises questions about the legal framework governing the use of pellet guns and non-lethal weapons for crowd control in India.
Read this also Why are pellet guns used as a ‘non-lethal’ crowd-control measure? | Explained
The use of ‘non-lethal’ pellet guns during the 2024 farmers’ protests was widely criticized. Although the police have denied the use of pellet guns, farmer leaders have alleged that many people have been injured. They were also used in Manipur in 2023 and in Kashmir since 2010.
What are pellet guns and how are they used?
Pellet guns are used by police and armed forces for crowd control and dispersing protests.
They fire cartridges containing sharp-edged pellets, usually metal. Once fired, the cartridge explodes and the shrapnel scatters. These are usually described as “non-lethal” or “less-lethal” weapons. These are also called birdshot or pigeon shot, reflecting their original use for hunting.
What does Indian law say about controlling unlawful assemblies?
Pellet guns are not classified as firearms under the Arms Act, 1959 if their muzzle energy is less than 20 joules. Pellet guns with a muzzle energy of more than 20 joules are considered firearms and require a weapons license. Low-powered pellet guns are considered air rifles and are not subject to the same licensing regulations as firearms.
Sections 148 to 151 of the Indian Civil Defense Code (BNSS), 2023, regulate the dispersal of unlawful assemblies. Under section 148, an Executive Magistrate, an officer in charge of a police station, or, in his absence, a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, may order the dispersion of an unlawful assembly, or an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb the public peace. If the assembly does not disperse, the officer may disperse it by force and, if necessary, arrest and imprison those forming part of it.
Section 149 allows the District Magistrate or any authorized Executive Magistrate to seek the assistance of armed forces where an assembly cannot otherwise be dispersed and it is necessary for public safety. It also requires that the armed forces “use such minimum force, and cause minimum injury to person or property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly.”
Section 150 empowers a commissioned or gazetted officer of the armed forces to act in the absence of an executive magistrate where public safety is clearly endangered, subject to directions from the magistrate when communication is possible.
Section 151 provides that no prosecution for acts alleged to have been committed under sections 148, 149 or 150 can be initiated without the sanction of the Central Government in the case of armed forces personnel or of the State Government in other cases, and also protects executive magistrates, police officers and persons acting in good faith under these provisions.
These sections correspond to sections 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Former Chhattisgarh Director General of Police RK Vij said the law mandates systematic use of force during crowd control. “Normally, as per the standard operating procedure for law and order, first a warning should be given, then tear gas, followed by lathi charge and only then there can be firing. The law strictly says that only minimum force will be used to disperse an unlawful assembly.”
Former IPS officer and former Central Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad said, “Whenever non-lethal force is used against a crowd to handle or control a situation, the first principle is negotiation. It was not followed in this case.”
What is the legality behind pellet guns and use of force?
Vrinda Grover, senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of India, said that the legality of pellet guns should be examined against the constitutional principles governing the use of force. He said, “The use of pellet guns must be measured on the yardstick and scale of legality, necessity and proportionality. Unreasonable and unauthorized use of pellet guns on unarmed crowds is illegal.”
He said the first aspect to be looked at is the nature of the crowd, whether it is armed, unarmed or engaged in rioting, and the police and law enforcement should determine their response accordingly.
He said, “The people of the country have a fundamental right to protest and express themselves. The only restriction is that they cannot use violence. The response will be taken accordingly. In this example, the crowd on July 20 was of unarmed protesters. They chose to exercise the freedom and it is legal and their right to do so.”
According to him, the Bureau of Police Research and Development under the Home Ministry has written in the manual that “the mob is not an enemy to be exterminated, but a fellow citizen who should be treated in a manner that causes minimum harm.”
Force can be used only when all other alternative measures fail. The use of pellet guns against unarmed protesters is disproportionate and excessive and would constitute an illegal use of force.
What have the Indian courts said?
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court had rejected a PIL seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns in Kashmir. The court said, “It is clear that as long as the unruly crowd is committing violence, the use of force is inevitable.”
The petition was filed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association to ban the use of pellet guns as a method of crowd control. It requested that 12-bore pellet guns and cartridges containing pellets of any other bore be banned as a means of crowd control against any group of people, including protesters, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The judges underlined that this is not a case where compensation is being sought or claimed for the wrongdoing of a security force personnel or violation of a fundamental right of a citizen. “…but for the discharge of public duty by such security force personnel who were being attacked by the violent mob during that period. Since the Government has discharged its obligation, nothing further needs to be done in this PIL.”
If someone is injured by a pellet gun, what legal remedies are available?
“The police are legally authorized to use pellet guns. However, it is important to decide when and where to use it. Student protests are not where a professional police officer would or should do. But then this is a subjective decision based on the perception of the police officer handling the crowd on the spot. He is answerable to use lathicharge/tear gas/water cannon/pellet guns,” Ms. Meeran Borwankar, former Director General, National Crime Records Bureau said.
Ms Grover said, “Who approved the use of pellet guns should be a matter of record and made available. What kind of assessment was done when it was clear that they were unarmed protesters? This is illegal. So, not only the person who fired the shot, but everyone in the chain of command is responsible and accountable.”
According to him, in public law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, it is well settled that victims are entitled to compensation not only for loss and injury and cost of medical treatment but also for the use of excessive force, violation of fundamental rights and failure of the State to protect the mob and, therefore, accountability has to be sought on all these matters.
Mr Azad said, “When pellet guns are used, questions arise as to whether their use was authorized by a senior officer, whether the situation was dire, whether it was absolutely necessary, and whether the response was proportionate to the threat.”
“The circumstances under which the pellet guns were used, and whether their use was authorized, must be investigated. A judicial inquiry can determine guilt or innocence, following which departmental action can be taken,” Mr Azad said.
Are pellet guns really “non-lethal”?
According to a joint project of the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), in collaboration with the Omega Research Foundation (OMEGA), pellets, known colloquially as “birdshot”, are hunting shells fired as a group of tens to hundreds of high-velocity metal projectiles. While undeniably lethal at close range, the minimum distance of use is designed to be far enough to ensure that the pellets have lost enough velocity to be non-lethal. However, even beyond the prescribed distance (SOP in India is that the gun should be fired from a minimum distance of 500 feet), pellet guns have the ballistic ability to penetrate certain organs, such as the eyes, which can cause blindness because their energy is focused on a very small impact area, allowing it to penetrate tissue.
The report said the US #6 birdshot bullet, the size commonly used by Indian police, has a diameter of about 3 mm, weighs about 0.126 grams, and leaves the muzzle at about 365 m/s, generating about 8 joules of kinetic energy. Although this is below the commonly cited lethal range, reports state that metal birdshot is nevertheless considered lethal at close range. It argues that factors such as energy density, projectile accuracy, and circumstances of use are more reliable indicators of lethality than kinetic energy alone.
Ms Grover warned, “Indian recognition of pellet guns as non-lethal is a misnomer. They cause serious injury and can cause permanent disability.”
What are the current international standards?
According to the UN’s 2020 guidance on less-lethal weapons, force should be a last resort, used only when no reasonable alternatives exist. It requires law enforcement to prioritize de-escalation, use only the minimum force necessary, and cease use of force when it is no longer necessary.
It also states that multiple-projectile weapons are generally inaccurate and, in most cases, incompatible with the principles of necessity and proportionality. It clearly states that “Metallic pellets, such as those fired from a firearm, should never be used.”
According to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990), force should be used only where less extreme means are inadequate. Governments should carefully evaluate and control the deployment of less lethal weapons to minimize harm to uninvolved individuals. The principles discourage weapons that cause undue injury or pose unnecessary risks.
According to the principles, “The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated to minimize the risk of endangering non-lethal persons involved, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.”
Principle 8 clearly states that extraordinary circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency cannot be invoked to justify any deviation from these basic principles.
Regarding police surveillance of unlawful assemblies, it states, “In accordance with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone is permitted to participate in lawful and peaceful assemblies, governments and law enforcement agencies and officials shall recognize that the use of force and firearms may only be in accordance with principles 13 and 14.”
Principle 13 states that in dispersing unlawful but non-violent assemblies, law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where this is not practicable, restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary. Principle 14 states that firearms may be used only when less dangerous means are not practical and only to the minimum extent necessary.
The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials also emphasizes the principle of necessity and states that in no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force that is inconsistent with the legitimate objective to be achieved.
