The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to preserve the ammunition records of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed during the student protest held at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20. The order came while the Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged use of metallic pellet guns against demonstrators during the protest over the alleged NEET paper leak.
Supreme Court Orders Preservation of RAF Ammunition Records in Delhi Student Protest Case
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana also instructed the Delhi Government to ensure that all persons who suffered pellet-related injuries receive the highest standard of medical treatment. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the injured should remain a priority while the allegations are being examined.
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Treatment for Jantar Mantar Pellet Victims
Court Seeks Preservation of Crucial Evidence
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the petitioners, requested the Court to safeguard evidence relating to the deployment of force by security personnel during the protest.
Taking note of the request, the Bench directed the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to preserve the RAF’s ammunition log. This record is expected to help determine the nature and extent of force used during the crowd-control operation. The direction adds to the Court’s earlier orders preserving CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-camera footage, and wireless communication records connected to the incident.
Also Read: Lok Sabha Passes Bill Raising Jail Term, Fines for Exam Fraud
Petition Challenges Use of Metallic Pellet Guns
The PIL has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad along with two individuals who claim they sustained pellet injuries during the “Sansad Chalo” demonstration.
The petition argues that the use of metallic pellet ammunition for dispersing civilian gatherings is inconsistent with constitutional protections governing the use of force by law enforcement agencies. Besides seeking a nationwide prohibition on such weapons for crowd control, the petition also requests compensation, rehabilitation, and comprehensive medical care for those allegedly injured during the protest.
Supreme Court Questions Blanket Ban Request
While considering the matter, the Bench observed that police regulations currently permit the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances. The judges noted that the petition seeks a blanket prohibition without directly challenging the existing legal framework that authorises their use.
The Court indicated that unless the relevant police regulations are specifically questioned, granting such wide-ranging relief may be difficult. However, it clarified that it remains willing to examine whether the use of pellet guns during the July 20 protest complied with the applicable legal standards and operational guidelines.
Petitioners Seek Access to Police Guidelines
The petitioners submitted that the operational guidelines governing the use of pellet guns are not easily accessible in the public domain. They urged the Court to direct the authorities to place the relevant Standard Operating Procedures and regulations on record so that they could appropriately amend their legal challenge.
The Solicitor General assured the Bench that the government would cooperate with the proceedings and preserve all material necessary for the Court’s examination.
Next Stage of Proceedings
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the legality of pellet guns in crowd-control operations. Instead, it has focused on preserving key evidence and ensuring medical care for those allegedly injured, while leaving the broader constitutional questions regarding the use of metallic pellet guns for detailed consideration in subsequent hearings.