Supreme Court on Thursday asked the petitioners seeking a ban on the use of metallic pellet guns for dispersing civilian assemblies to amend their plea to specifically challenge the police regulations permitting the use of such weapons in exceptional circumstances.
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the petitioners seeking a ban on the use of metallic pellet guns for dispersing civilian assemblies to amend their plea to specifically challenge the police regulations permitting the use of such weapons in exceptional circumstances, while directing the Delhi government to ensure medical treatment for those injured during the July 20 student protests.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a plea filed by former Intelligence Bureau (IB) Special Director Yashovardhan Azad and two persons who allegedly suffered pellet injuries during the 'Sansad Chalo' protest at Jantar Mantar.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the plea was specifically concerned with metallic pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile action guns, which had allegedly been recovered from the bodies of two injured petitioners.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that police regulations permit the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances as part of a graded response and told the petitioners that their prayer seeking a blanket ban was "vague" unless the validity of the relevant regulations was challenged.
"We are not averse to examining use of pellets in an individual use. But you must show us if under the graded response use of pellets can be allowed," Justice Bagchi observed.
Grover submitted that there was a distinction between rubber, plastic and metallic pellets and said the present case concerned metallic pellets allegedly fired at students who were protesting peacefully.
She also told the CJI Kant-led Bench that she could not find any standing order of the Delhi Police permitting the use of pellet guns and urged the Centre to place any such order on record.
"I am sure the Union and the Delhi Police do not wish to fire pellets at innocent youngsters," Grover submitted.
The Supreme Court indicated that instead of seeking an absolute prohibition, the petitioners could seek appropriate safeguards or a protocol governing the use of pellet guns in light of allegations of excessive force.
"In light of alleged excessive use, your prayer should be that the Court lays down a protocol regarding the use," the CJI Kant-led Bench observed.
Justice Bagchi also referred to an earlier case concerning police regulations in Kolkata, observing that a rule prescribing where bullets should be fired had been struck down, and said the petitioners would have to demonstrate how the rules permitting the use of pellets were arbitrary.
The apex court agreed with the petitioners that peaceful protests should not be met with violence and stressed the need for a proportionate response by law enforcement agencies.
"We are agreeable to a non-violent approach when students protest. But a graded response may be required in some cases. Arm your police in such a way that they don't have to revert to such actions," Justice Bagchi observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that police personnel at the protest site were equipped with protective gear and that the forces had to take decisions based on the situation prevailing at the spot.
The petitioners also raised concerns regarding the medical treatment of the injured protesters.
Grover submitted that while one petitioner was receiving proper treatment, the medical records of another injured petitioner had not been released by the hospital.
The top court asked the Solicitor General to look into the issue.
In its interim direction, the CJI Kant-led Bench ordered that the "Government of Delhi shall provide medical treatment to the injured petitioner or other similarly placed individuals."
Grover further sought preservation of duty logs, weapon and ammunition logs and registers relating to the deployment of the Rapid Action Force in New Delhi on July 20, particularly records concerning the use of pellet guns.
SG Mehta agreed that the relevant records could be preserved, following which the CJI Kant-led Bench impressed upon him to ensure their preservation.
The plea, filed by Azad, a former Special Director of the Intelligence Bureau and former Central Information Commissioner, has challenged the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles and projectile action guns for dispersal of civilian assemblies.
The petitioners have sought compensation for persons injured by pellets during the July 20 protest, besides medical treatment for the victims.
They have alleged that the Rapid Action Force used pellet guns against protesters who had gathered at Jantar Mantar for the 'Sansad Chalo' march, resulting in pellets penetrating the bodies of at least two persons who required medical intervention.
The petitioners have contended that the use of pellet guns against a peaceful civilian gathering is disproportionate and violates constitutional protections relating to life, liberty and peaceful assembly.