Police records confirm the use of 'plastic pellets' by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) during a July 20 protest, contradicting earlier official statements. The disclosure has sparked a political controversy and raised questions about the origin of these munitions, leading to demands for transparency regarding security force equipment.
A recent controversy has emerged regarding the ammunition used by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) during a protest in Delhi on July 20, 2026. Official records from the Parliament Street police station, specifically a general diary entry dated July 22, confirm that RAF personnel fired two rounds of 'plastic pellets' on the instruction of a Deputy Commissioner of Police-rank officer. This revelation has caused significant concern, as it directly contradicts previous official denials regarding the use of such crowd-control measures.
The confirmation has triggered a political row and raised serious questions about the nature of the equipment employed by state security forces. While authorities had initially denied that pellet guns were used, the presence of these projectiles in official records has now shifted the focus toward accountability and the transparency of government inventory. Protesters reported sustaining injuries during the event, further fueling public and legal scrutiny.
A significant part of the mystery involves the origin of the ammunition itself. Despite inquiries made by various stakeholders, no major domestic weapon manufacturer, including state-owned entities like Munitions India Limited, has confirmed the existence, manufacture, or official supply of 'plastic pellets.' This lack of a clear paper trail or manufacturer record has created a gap in public understanding, with experts noting that conventional 12-bore ammunition typically uses different materials. The absence of documentation regarding the procurement and issuance of these specific rounds remains a central point of contention.
From a governance and public interest perspective, the incident highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the use of non-lethal and less-lethal force in crowd control. Legal experts and civil society groups are now seeking judicial intervention to investigate the circumstances under which these munitions were authorized and deployed. The incident has led to demands for official statements from the Union Home Ministry to clarify the force's equipment policy.
The key focus for observers now will be the outcome of pending petitions and potential official inquiries. Clarity regarding whether these projectiles are part of the standard security force inventory, or if they represent an undocumented addition to the crowd-control toolkit, remains the primary monitorable for public safety and governance accountability.