M.P. Nathanael | Can Police Use of Pellet Guns Be Fully Banned?

The use of pellet guns during the recent students’ protest in New Delhi has drawn widespread condemnation after five young men, including a journalist, were seriously injured. One victim sustained severe eye injuries that impaired his vision, and doctors reportedly see little chance of a full recovery. In some cases, pellets will continue to remain lodged in the body until they cause serious complications requiring surgical removal. Information obtained through RTI from hospitals in New Delhi reveal that at least 10 people were treated for pellets embedded in their bodies, especially in the face and upper body.

Introduced in Srinagar in 2010 to control stone-pelting crowds confronting security forces, pellets fired from a 12-bore pump-action shotgun became widely used across the valley after 2016. As many as 17 people were killed, and 6,221 were injured between July 2016 and February 2017 due to pellet firing. Among those injured, 728 were hit in the eyes resulting in partial or complete loss of vision. This caused much resentment among the denizens of the valley.

A 15-year-old girl was Insha Mushtaq, lost her eyesight when she ventured to look out of the window to see protestors and was hit by a spray of pellets in her face. The Jammu and Kashmir government compensated her by allotting her a gas agency and released the required funds of Rs 41.16 lakhs recently. Earlier, she was paid Rs 20 lakhs for the purpose.

Pellet guns were later used against farmers during the 2024 protests on the Punjab-Haryana border, against rioters in Manipur in May 2023, and against agitators in Ladakh last year. These incidents may not have drawn national attention because the injuries reported may have been comparatively less severe. When fired at close range, pellets can cause serious injuries, including brain and internal organ damage, fractures and deep skin wounds. Fired from a long distance, they may cause less serious injuries and yet can strike people who may not be the intended targets.

While recommending use of chilli grenades, stun grenades and tear smoke as a riot control mechanism, an expert committee convened in 2016 stated categorically that pellet guns be used in exceptional cases though the complete report is yet to find its way to public domain. Chilli grenades have been effectively used against Rohingyas by the Border Security Force on Indo-Bangladesh border. Known to be one of the hottest chillis in the world, bhut jolokia, which is largely grown in Assam, is used in chilli grenades and are manufactured in a Tear Smoke Unit of BSF in Gwalior. Chilli spray used in these grenades are known to incapacitate a person for a while.

The BSF also produces drone tear smoke launchers that facilitate the use of tear smoke from a distance without the police personnel getting effected by the smoke as it can be launched from a distance and more accurately dropped at the intended spot. The wind velocity and direction are taken into consideration while launching tear smoke shells.

A 2011 Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) study recommended in its standard operating procedure that tear gas shells, stingers, water cannons and stink bombs be used as non-lethal, effective crowd-dispersal tools. There is no mention of use of pellet guns perhaps due to the large number of cases of serious injuries suffered by the locals in Srinagar in 2009 and 2010.

Although stun grenades have been used for crowd control, they are deployed sparingly because their seven-million-candela glare can cause flash blindness and temporary vision loss. Their 170-decibel blast can also have a deafening, disorienting effect that takes time to recover from.

While the Rapid Action Force which is a part of the Central Reserve Police Force is conducting a detailed inquiry into the use of pellet guns, Mr Yashovardhan Azad, a former IPS officer along with two others had filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding the ban on use of pellet guns in crowd control. The court however turned it down stating that “Police regulations permit use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances. If you want phasing out of pellet guns, then you must challenge those regulations which you have not done.”

In no way can the use of pellet guns be considered non-lethal given the fact that people have died when hit be the pellets. Across the world, use of non-lethal bombs/grenades are considered the safest mode of dispersing crowds. Tear gas shells that were introduced in 1920 in the US have been commonly used to control mobs. Though the pellet guns came to be used in the 1970s, it was the use of pepper spray that was found to be most effective in dispersal of crowds.

Studies carried out in the US indicate that 53 people died due to injuries by pellets and 300 were maimed for life between 1990 and 2017 largely due to their suffering serious pellet injuries around their necks and heads. Seventy-one per cent of the 1,984 people injured suffered serious skin ailments.

However, while the level of force used to disperse agitators may appear excessive to those not present at the scene, officers on the ground are best placed to assess the situation and decide the appropriate response. When a violent crowd attacks police personnel and creates a reasonable fear of serious injury or death, the use of pellet guns may, in some circumstances, be viewed as a calibrated and graded police response, even though it may injure the protesters.

Yet the Jantar Mantar episode should serve as a case study for crowd control to draw lessons and recommend other non-lethal methods of crowd control keeping in view its proximity to the Parliament and other important establishments in the vicinity. BPR&D needs to carry out an in-depth study on better ways to control and disperse violent and unruly crowds.