The Supreme Court has emphasized non-violent protest management while asking the government to prioritize defensive gear for police. This follows a petition regarding the use of pellet guns during a July 20 protest against alleged NEET-UG exam irregularities.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday issued directives regarding the management of public demonstrations, calling for police to adopt measured, non-violent responses during student protests. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, underscored that state forces must avoid excessive brutality when dealing with unarmed protestors, while simultaneously acknowledging the risks posed by disruptive elements that may infiltrate peaceful assemblies.
Focus on Defensive Equipment
The Bench, including Justice Joymalya Bagchi, advocated for a shift in how law enforcement is equipped for crowd control. The court suggested that supplying officers with protective rather than offensive gear could foster a more measured approach. By providing police with better defensive equipment, the court noted that officers may have more time to assess situations effectively, balancing the safety of the public with the security of the officers themselves.
Legal Challenges Over Crowd Control Methods
The current proceedings originated from a petition filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and others following an incident on July 20 at Jantar Mantar. The petitioners were protesting against alleged paper leaks in the NEET-UG examination. The petition alleged that Rapid Action Force personnel used pump-action guns to fire pellets at protestors, causing injuries. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the use of pellet guns for crowd dispersal does not meet constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality, citing potential infringements on the right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
While the court expressed reluctance to impose a blanket ban on the use of pellet guns, it indicated a willingness to examine specific instances of alleged arbitrary force. The Bench has asked the government to present existing regulations and protocols that govern police crowd control measures. If these protocols are found lacking, the court signaled it might formulate its own guidelines to ensure constitutional rights are upheld.
Procedural Directives and Next Steps
Beyond the broader policy implications, the court issued specific interim orders regarding the July 20 incident. The Delhi government has been directed to ensure comprehensive medical care for one of the injured petitioners. Furthermore, the court ordered the preservation of official records, including duty logs and weapon deployment logs, related to the incident. The next stage of the proceedings will involve a review of government protocols, and the petitioners have been asked to refine their request for a ban on weapons to more specifically address incidents of excessive force.