Why the use of a pellet gun on protesters in Delhi has triggered alarm

The Cockroach Janta Party's protest is over, but three big questions have emerged about the use of pellet guns on protesters in New Delhi on July 20. A map of pellet gun victims by India Today Digital reveals how all of them were shot within a distance of 800 metres in Connaught Place.

In the late afternoon of July 20, as thousands marched through the heart of Delhi, Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel fired pellet guns at protesters. At least three people, one a teenager and two in their 20s, were hit. This was reportedly the first known instance of the use of pellet guns against civilians in the National Capital Territory.

Photos of a fourth pellet victim are circulating, but there is no confirmation of his identity, whereabouts or condition.

A pellet lodged below the eye of one protester. Another protester was hit directly in the eye, arm and back. A third, a journalist, was hit while fleeing. The shots were fired in the open, in full public view, against an unarmed crowd.

Contrary to standard crowd-control protocol, water cannons were not deployed before police used tear gas and pellet guns.

The three known victims reached hospital within roughly an hour of being hit.

Let's break down each case and trace the positions of the RAF staffer carrying a pump-action shotgun.

Shaikh Irshad Mansoori was near Palika Bazaar in Connaught Place when he was struck. Reports from The Hindu and The Indian Express suggest that Mansoori reached Lady Hardinge Hospital around 5 pm on July 20. Apart from the pellet that remained lodged below his eye, Mansoori also sustained facial injuries from the pellets.

Sahil Lochab was near Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan. He also reached Lady Hardinge around 5 pm with injuries to the eye, the side of the arm and his back.

The third victim, a journalist who has asked not to be named, was near The Statesman House at around 4 pm. He was hit while running after seeing a gun pointed at him. The pellet struck him on the back. He reached Safdarjung Hospital by about 4.30 pm.

RAF personnel in blue uniform were spotted near Pind Balluchi restaurant in Connaught Place around the same period. A video of one of them shooting has emerged.

These details matter because they sit at the centre of three clear failures in the use of force on the afternoon of July 20.

The RAF is a specialised unit of the CRPF, which has begun a probe into the use of pellet guns. A source confirmed to India Today TV that the RAF used a pellet gun in the Connaught Place area on July 20.

THREE FAILURES OF THE RAPID ACTION FORCE CROWD CONTROL

First, pellet guns are meant to be a last resort.

Standard crowd-control sequencing begins with less-lethal options. Water cannons were available and were not deployed. The protesters were dry. No water barrier or high-pressure spray was used to create distance or disperse the gathering before "metal pellets" were fired.

The choice skipped intermediate measures and went straight to a weapon whose effects, at close range, are well documented as capable of causing permanent injury.

Second, the crowd, as seen in the videos, presented no imminent threat that would justify the immediate escalation. The incident occurred in open public space. There was no rioting, no visible weapons in the hands of the protesters.

The journalist, who was hit with over 20 pellets, told India Today Digital that he was present only as an observer. He was running away when the pellet struck him on the back. Accounts from Shaikh Irshad Mansoori and Sahil Lochab likewise state that they were not engaged in any offensive or anti-social activity. Both were struck in the face and upper body. The scene, by the description of those present and by the locations involved, was not one of violent confrontation requiring lethal or near-lethal force.

Third, the firing itself disregarded established protocols. Guidance on the use of pellet guns requires shots to be aimed below the waist and, where possible, the use of deflectors to direct the spray downward so that vital organs are protected. That did not happen. The three victims were hit on the face, eyes, torso and back. One pellet lodged below the eye. Another caused injury to the eye. The journalist was struck while fleeing, on the back and around the elbow. The pattern of injuries shows the barrels were pointed at the upper body and head, not the lower limbs.

STRICT GUIDELINES TO USE PELLET GUNS; STATE RESPONSIBLE: SENIOR ADVOCATE, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST

Lawyer Vrinda Grover, speaking to India Today TV, set out the legal and operational framework that was ignored. "The state is responsible for the use of a weapon of this nature. There are strict guidelines as to when certain kinds of weapons are to be used. The nature of the crowd and the principles of necessity and proportionality, both in the use of force and choice of weapon at all times have to guide it."

Grover also said, "It is undeniable nobody was armed. There were multiple other ways in which crowd control takes place. This [pellet gun] was used. The law says do not use metal pellets. The ones that are used here are metal pellets. This, when used in less than 500 metres, turns into a lethal weapon. Those pellets will not only strike that person they're aimed at but can strike any part of the body, and we are seeing injury on vital organs like the eyes."

Grover also cited the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) crowd-control manual, saying, "The crowd is not an enemy to be annihilated, but fellow citizens who have to be dealt with in a manner which brings the least harm to them.” She added: “We are reminding the forces of their obligations."

The legal standard is necessity and proportionality. Necessity asks whether any force at all was required at that moment. Proportionality asks whether the chosen weapon and the manner of its use were the least harmful options available. On both counts, the sequence of events raises questions. An unarmed gathering in an open commercial district, no water cannons used, no evidence of imminent violence, and metal pellets directed at the upper body of people who were, in at least one documented case, already running away.

Pellet guns fire a cloud of small metal projectiles. At short range, the cloud does not remain a tight pattern aimed at a single lower-body target. It spreads. A pellet that misses its intended point of impact can still strike the face, the eyes or the torso of the same person or of someone nearby. That is precisely what the injuries show: face, eye, back, arm, torso.

The weapon, used in the manner described, produced exactly the kind of harm the protocols are written to prevent.

The locations speak for themselves. Palika Bazaar, Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan and The Statesman House sit inside the Connaught Place circle, one of the most heavily surveilled and accessible commercial zones in the national capital. The firing was not confined to a sealed or distant site. It took place where shopkeepers, office workers, journalists and passers-by could see it.

The fact that three individuals, at three nearby points, were hit in the same short window of the late afternoon indicates the use was not a single, isolated, carefully controlled discharge. Multiple rounds were fired at protesters. It now remains to be determined if it was one RAF person or several personnel who used pellet guns. Only a fair probe will establish that.

- Ends