The Pellet-Gun question: What does the July 20 crackdown reveal about protest policing?

On the afternoon of 20th July, thousands of students, parents and supporters associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) assembled near Delhi's Jantar Mantar for the Chalo Sansad march demanding accountability over alleged examination irregularities and the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Before demonstrators could proceed towards Parliament, Delhi Police, assisted by the Rapid Action Force (RAF),dispersed the gathering through a coordinated crowd-control operation. Within hours, hospitals began receiving protesters with pellet injuries to their faces, necks and eyes. Among them was 19-year-old Sahil Lochab, whose family said a pellet pierced his right pupil, leaving him at risk of permanently losing vision. Other injured protesters underwent surgery to remove pellets lodged in their upper bodies.

The official narrative initially appeared straightforward. Delhi Police publicly denied that pellet guns had been used, describing such allegations as false and asserting that pellet guns did not form part of the police arsenal. The force dismissed social media claims as misinformation, framing the operation as a standard law-and-order response to a prohibited march.

That account began to weaken as documentary and medical evidence accumulated. Medical treatment records, eyewitness testimonies and photographs of injuries prompted growing scrutiny over the methods employed during the crackdown. Simultaneously, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) initiated an internal verification into the conduct of RAF (Rapid Action Force) personnel deployed at the protest after allegations of excessive force gained national attention.

The internal findings marked the first significant institutional shift. Reports emerging from the CRPF verification indicated that RAF personnel fired seven rounds from pellet guns during the July 20 operation, with five rounds striking protesters. The inquiry reportedly examined whether standard operating procedures governing crowd-control weapons had been followed and whether personnel had deviated from prescribed protocols during the dispersal exercise.

The controversy entered a new phase on 28 July,when The Hindu accessed an official General Diary entry recorded by the RAF at 1.24 a.m at Parliament Street Police Station. The entry reportedly documents that, on the orders of the DCP, the RAF Deputy Commandant deployed multiple categories of crowd-control munitions during the operation, including 55 rounds of non-electrical shells, 15 rounds of electrical shells, five tear-smoke grenades and two ballistic cartridges loaded with plastic pellets fired from an anti-riot gun. The document is significant not merely because it records the use of pellet ammunition, but because it attributes the decision to a Deputy Commissioner of Police-rank officer, directly raising questions of command responsibility. It also appears to contradict the earlier public denial that pellet projectiles had been deployed during the protest.

According to the same report, the July 20 operation represents the first documented instance of pellet projectiles being used against unarmed civilian protesters in Delhi. Until now, pellet guns have largely remained associated with crowd-control operations in Jammu and Kashmir, where their deployment generated sustained debate over blindness, permanent injuries and proportionality of force. The Delhi incident has therefore expanded a long-standing regional controversy into a nationwide constitutional debate over civilian protest policing.

The legal consequences have been equally significant. Retired Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad, along with two protesters injured during the crackdown, approached the Supreme Court seeking a prohibition on the use of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles against civilian assemblies, compensation for victims, and comprehensive medical treatment and rehabilitation. Their petition argues that such projectiles are incompatible with constitutional guarantees protecting peaceful assembly and bodily integrity. The Court, while hearing multiple petitions arising from the July 20 crackdown, observed that the right to peaceful protest is constitutionally protected and indicated it was considering broader guidelines governing police use of force during public demonstrations.

The July 20 crackdown has now moved beyond the immediate question of injuries sustained during a protest. Medical records, an internal RAF inquiry, an official General Diary entry and petitions before the Supreme Court have together transformed the episode into a test of institutional accountability. If the General Diary accurately records that pellet ammunition was fired on the directions of a Delhi Police DCP, it raises difficult questions about operational decision-making, command responsibility and the transparency of official communication after the incident. The controversy is no longer centred on whether force was used, but on who authorised it? whether established crowd-control protocols were followed? and why initial public denials appear inconsistent with subsequent documentary evidence?

As the Supreme Court weighs petitions seeking a prohibition on pellet projectiles against civilian assemblies, the July 20 episode may become more than an isolated policing controversy. It could establish an important judicial precedent on the permissible limits of force during peaceful demonstrations and the standards of accountability expected when the State deploys coercive measures against its own citizens. The outcome is likely to shape not only the future of this investigation, but also the broader framework governing protest policing in India.