Recent reports alleging the potential deployment of pellet guns during protest marches in the national capital have reignited a fierce legal, ethical, and operational debate across India’s security and legal establishments. While the Delhi Police officially denied deploying 12-bore pellet shotguns or similar anti-riot munitions against demonstrators heading toward Parliament, allegations involving auxiliary law enforcement units, including the Rapid Action Force (RAF), have placed the regulatory framework governing non-lethal weapons and crowd dispersal techniques under intense public and judicial scrutiny.
The controversy underscores the delicate balance law enforcement agencies must maintain between upholding public order and respecting fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. As civil society organizations call for greater accountability and standardization, legal experts and internal security analysts are closely evaluating the statutory provisions, procedural guidelines, and international human rights benchmarks that govern the use of force by police personnel during civil unrest.
Legal Provisions Governing Crowd Dispersal
In India, the authority of law enforcement agencies to disperse an “unlawful assembly” is primarily derived from statutory provisions under criminal procedure laws. Under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973—Sections 189 through 193 (corresponding to Sections 129 to 132 of the former CrPC) outline the legal powers and mandatory protocols for maintaining public peace.
Under Section 189 of the BNSS, any Executive Magistrate or officer-in-charge of a police station holds the statutory power to command an unlawful assembly, or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, to disperse. If such an assembly refuses to disperse upon command, or conducts itself in a manner indicating a determination not to disperse, the designated authority may proceed to disperse the crowd by force.
Crucially, Indian administrative law embeds the “Principle of Proportionality” and the concept of “Minimum Necessary Force” within crowd control operations. Police standard operating procedures (SOPs) mandate a progressive escalation ladder, often referred to as a graduated response strategy. Law enforcement officers are legally required to exhaust milder measures—such as verbal warnings, water cannons, tear gas shells, and lathi (baton) charges—before escalating to kinetic impact projectiles, plastic bullets, pellet guns, or live ammunition.
The Evolution and Impact of Pellet Guns
Pellet guns, technically categorized as 12-bore pump-action shotguns, were broadly introduced into Indian security protocols in 2010 following widespread civilian unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. Intended as a “less-lethal” alternative to live military ammunition, these weapons fire cartridges containing hundreds of tiny lead pellets. Upon discharge, the pellets spray over a wide radius, designed to inflict localized non-lethal pain and immobilize aggressive rioters.
However, the operational reality of pellet guns has consistently drawn severe criticism from medical professionals, human rights bodies, and judicial observers. Due to the wide dispersion pattern of lead pellets, precise targeting is virtually impossible in chaotic crowd environments. When fired from close range or aimed above waist level, pellets frequently cause irreversible ocular trauma, leading to permanent loss of vision, facial disfigurement, and penetration of vital internal organs.
Following intense national and international debate in 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) constituted a high-level expert committee headed by TVSN Prasad to review existing crowd control weapons. The committee recommended exploring non-lethal alternatives, such as PAVA (Pelargonic Acid Vanillylamide) shells—an organic tear gas derivative—alongside rubber bullets, plastic bullets, and enhanced water cannon technology, while urging that pellet guns be reserved strictly for extreme situations under stringent oversight.
Judicial Oversight and Fundamental Rights
The legal debate surrounding crowd control weaponry intersects directly with Constitutional guarantees under Part III of the Constitution of India. While Article 19(1)(b) grants citizens the fundamental right to assemble peaceably and without arms, Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, and public order of the nation.
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly affirmed that Article 21—the Right to Life and Personal Liberty—extends to protesters. Excessive or disproportionate force used by police during crowd dispersal violates Article 21. In historic rulings, including the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case and directions regarding police reforms, the judiciary established that state force must remain strictly proportional to the threat posed, and state actors remain subject to criminal investigation if force used is proven arbitrary or malicious.
Furthermore, international instruments to which India is aligned, such as the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, stipulate that non-lethal weapons must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and that law enforcement officials must exercise restraint to minimize damage and injury.
Operational Challenges and the Path Forward
Security experts note that police forces face complex challenges during large-scale urban demonstrations, where peaceful marches can quickly deteriorate into mob violence or stampedes. Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) such as the Rapid Action Force (RAF)—a specialized wing of the CRPF trained specifically for riot control—operate under detailed operational manuals emphasizing tactical restraint, non-lethal deterrents, and clear visual and audio warnings.
However, field implementation often reveals gaps in training, non-lethal gear availability, and real-time operational decision-making. Modernization proposals emphasize equipping law enforcement with advanced non-injurious technology, body-worn cameras for operational accountability, and mandatory tactical refresher courses focusing on conflict de-escalation and lawful assembly management.
Source: www.thehindu.com
Why it is Important for Aspirants
Understanding the legal and administrative framework governing crowd control is essential for civil services aspirants, particularly for civil services papers examining public order, internal security, and fundamental rights. It highlights the practical application of constitutional law, executive accountability, and police reforms in contemporary governance.
Key Facts & Syllabus Mapping
- Prelims Facts: Statutory provisions under BNSS Sections 189-193 (formerly CrPC 129-132); TVSN Prasad Expert Committee (2016) on crowd control weapons; PAVA shells and 12-bore pellet shotguns.
- GS Paper: GS Paper II (Governance, Polity & Constitutional Provisions – Fundamental Rights, Public Order) and GS Paper III (Internal Security – Role of CAPFs, Security Challenges, Police Reforms).
- Chhattisgarh Special: Relevance to civil order management, law enforcement deployment during public demonstrations, and CAPF coordination in state administration.
Practice Prelims MCQ
Q. With reference to crowd control and public order management in India, consider the following statements:
1. Under Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, an Executive Magistrate or police station officer-in-charge holds the legal authority to order an unlawful assembly to disperse.
2. The TVSN Prasad Committee (2016) was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to recommend alternatives to pellet guns for crowd management.
3. The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution is an absolute right without any reasonable restrictions.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1 and 3 only
D) 1, 2, and 3
Answer: A
Explanation: Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect because the right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interests of public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India.
Analysis provided by the NewsFlow UPSC & CGPSC Desk.
