Are pellet guns legal for crowd control in India? | Explained

The controversy surrounding the alleged use of pellet guns by security forces during protests near Parliament in 2024 has once again thrust the debate on 'non-lethal' crowd control weapons into the national spotlight. While the Delhi Police categorically denied deploying pellet guns against demonstrators marching to Parliament, allegations against the Rapid Action Force (RAF) — a specialized wing of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) trained for riot control — have reignited critical questions about the legal, ethical, and operational framework governing the use of force in India. This issue is not new; it echoes the 2016 Kashmir unrest, where pellet guns fired by security forces caused over 1,000 eye injuries, including permanent blindness in several civilians, drawing widespread condemnation from human rights bodies like Amnesty International and the NHRC. The legal basis for dispersing unlawful assemblies in India rests primarily on the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Section 129 empowers Executive Magistrates and police officers to command dispersal of an unlawful assembly and, if necessary, use civil force to do so. Section 130 extends this authority to the armed forces when civil authorities are unable to control the situation. However, these provisions mandate that force must be proportionate, necessary, and used only as a last resort. The Arms Act, 1959, further regulates the possession and use of firearms, including pellet guns, which are classified as 'firearms' under the Act if they propel projectiles by explosive force — a classification that brings them under strict licensing and usage protocols. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized constitutional safeguards in the use of state force. In the landmark Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) and subsequent rulings, the Court underscored that Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) encompasses protection from arbitrary or excessive force by the State. The 2017 guidelines in the context of Manipur fake encounters reinforced that any use of force must adhere to principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. The NHRC’s 2010 and 2020 advisories on crowd control explicitly caution against the use of pellet guns, citing their indiscriminate nature and high risk of permanent disability. Key stakeholders include the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which oversees central armed police forces like the CRPF/RAF; state police forces; the judiciary; NHRC; and civil society organizations. The RAF, deployed for its specialized riot control training, is expected to follow strict SOPs — yet allegations of pellet gun use suggest gaps in oversight, training, or accountability mechanisms. The significance for India is profound. As a vibrant democracy with frequent public protests — from farmers’ movements to student agitations — the credibility of law enforcement hinges on adherence to rule of law. Indiscriminate use of pellet guns erodes public trust, fuels human rights criticism internationally, and risks violating India’s commitments under the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), which it ratified in 1979. Domestically, it deepens social fault lines, especially in regions like Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast, where such weapons have been historically deployed. Looking ahead, there is growing pressure for a clear policy banning pellet guns for crowd control, as recommended by the NHRC and several parliamentary committees. The MHA may be compelled to issue revised SOPs mandating body cameras, independent inquiries for injuries, and a shift toward truly non-kinetic alternatives like water cannons, tear gas, or long-range acoustic devices. For aspirants, this issue sits at the intersection of Polity (Articles 21, 19, 355), Internal Security, and Ethics — making it a high-yield topic for UPSC, State PSCs, and CAPF exams. Understanding the balance between public order and fundamental rights is not just academic — it is central to the idea of constitutional democracy in India.