The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will not decide on the validity of using pellet guns as crowd control measures but expected the Centre to come up with alternate measures that could achieve the same purpose without inflicting harm on innocent children, women and bystanders who become the unfortunate targets in the face-off between protesters and security personnel.
Faced with the daunting task of deciding whether security personnel are right in using pellets or the victims for demanding an end to use of such means to control crowds when casualties on both sides are equally alarming, the Bench headed by CJI JS Khehar said, “There is no question of the court saying what you use and what to do. We appreciate the situation has to be determined spot-specific depending on what is with you there. But as the situation has it you are also a welfare State whose purpose is not to physically harm anybody and at the same time protect yourself.”
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi who appeared for the Centre said that pellet guns are used as a measure of last report but often security personnel are forced to resort to it as being a border state one cannot know if anti-nationals are taking the shield of demonstrators to launch a terrorist attack on security personnel. He said these issues involve the ‘integrity and sovereignty’ of the country. He said that between July 8 and August 11 last year, security personnel sustained 252 attacks of which 44 involved use of kerosene bombs, petrol bombs, acid bottles, Molotov cocktails, besides sharp-edged stones. While pellet gun injuries led to 50 deaths and 300 injuries with some being totally blinded, on the other side close to 3,777 police and security personnel also suffered grievous injuries.
The Bench asked if alternatives to the pellet guns could be installed at strategic locations where major agitations took place in the State. Few suggestions given were cannons of water with awful smell and lazer dazer in order to disperse crowd. The bench posted the matter for April 10 to know Centre’s view on this.