The Supreme Court on Monday said it would frame a comprehensive protocol governing the use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies during crowd control operations, while also clarifying that Delhi and other state governments are free to withdraw first information reports (FIRs) against student protesters involved in recent demonstrations, except those accused of grave and heinous offences.
A bench comprising chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, justice Joymalya Bagchi and justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions arising from the 20th July student protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged examination paper leaks and allegations of police excesses during the demonstrations.
The bench said it intended to examine whether pellet guns should be used at all for crowd control and, if their use is permitted, under what circumstances.
"We will take their affidavit, and with your assistance and with the opinion of domain experts, we would like to lay down a protocol on whether it can be used or not and if allowed, in what circumstances," the chief justice observed after hearing submissions by the petitioners.
Later during the hearing, the bench reiterated that it wanted to formulate 'a complete protocol on how and where it can be used'.
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns against civilian assemblies and compensation for two protesters who allegedly sustained pellet injuries during the 20 July 2026 demonstration in Delhi.
The petition has been filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad along with Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, who claim they were injured after the rapid action force (RAF) allegedly fired pump-action pellet guns during the 'Sansad Chalo' protest.
Senior counsel Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, argued that there was no standing order or regulation authorising the Delhi police to use pellet guns and contended that the weapon was inherently unsuitable for deployment against civilians.
She told the Court that her research covering the period from 1967 onwards had found no standing order or regulation specifically permitting police forces to use pellet guns.
According to the submissions, pellet guns first came into use in Jammu and Kashmir in 2010, while a standard operating procedure (SOP) was prepared by a Union task force in 2011 and a high powered committee (HPC) submitted a report in 2016. However, Ms Grover said the committee's report was not publicly available and there was no Delhi police standing order even mentioning the weapon.
She urged the Court to direct the Union government to file an affidavit disclosing whether any such authorisation existed.
According to the petition, Mr Singh and Mr Mansoori suffered multiple pellet injuries requiring surgical intervention at Lady Hardinge Medical College to remove pellets lodged in their bodies. Mr Singh also claimed to have seen at least one other injured protester being treated at the hospital.
The petition describes pellet guns as .12 bore pump-action shotguns that discharge cartridges containing about 250 to 400 small metallic projectiles. Since the pellets spread over a wide area, the petitioners argued that they carry a significant risk of causing serious injuries, particularly to the eyes and other vital organs.
The pellet gun petition is being heard along with other cases relating to alleged police action during the 20th July protests.
In a separate but related development, the apex court clarified its 28 July 2026 order regarding criminal cases registered against protesters.
The Court said that the governments of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and other states are at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters. It further clarified that the expression 'criminal antecedents' used in its earlier order should be interpreted as referring only to persons involved in grave and heinous offences.
"It is clarified for 28 July 2026 order that NCT of Delhi and any other State shall be at liberty to close/withdraw FIRs against protesters. The word criminal antecedents is to be read as grave and heinous offences," the bench said.
The clarification came after counsel representing some protesters submitted that police authorities were relying on the earlier order to keep cases pending even where individuals had only minor previous offences, such as traffic violations or participation in earlier protests.
The bench also said it is considering two possible mechanisms to investigate allegations of police excesses during the protests.
"There are two things in our mind. One is a special investigative team (SIT) of police officers to investigate or to have a committee headed by a retired judge," the Court remarked.
At an earlier hearing, the bench had observed that allegations of police excesses prima facie warranted a fair and independent inquiry. However, it granted the Union government, Delhi police and the governments of Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh an opportunity to place their versions on record before deciding on the appropriate mechanism.
The Supreme Court ultimately decided to await responses from the concerned governments before passing further orders and listed the matter for further hearing on 18 August 2026.
Delhi HC Denies Naresh Balyan Bail in MCOCA Case after Trial Court Discharges Him in 2023 Extortion Case
Moneylife Digital Team
03 August 2026
Naresh Balyan, a former member of the legislative assembly (MLA) from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), will remain in judicial custody after the Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant him bail in a case registered under the Maharashtra...
Read the Lake, or Lose the Valley
Safi Ahsan Rizvi
03 August 2026
The massive devastation seen in Kedarnath (July 2013) was the impact of a cascading hydro-met disaster, amplified by the failure of the Chorabari glacial lake. The next massive such glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) was of Sikkim's...
It Is Not Courts' Function To Preach What Protestors Should Say or Not Say: Justice AS Oka
Neha Joshi (Bar
and
Bench)
03 August 2026
Supreme Court’s former judge Justice Abhay S Oka warned that India risks losing democracy if the State continues to criminalise dissent.
The retired judge urged constitutional courts to quash such prosecutions and stop regulating...
The Chairman Paid For A Hit Job on MD
Moneylife Digital Team
01 August 2026
Shares of GSM Foils Ltd hit the 20% lower circuit on the NSE SME platform on Friday after the company informed the National Stock Exchange (NSE) that its managing director (MD), Mohansingh Parmar, had sustained injuries in a firing...
