Are pellet guns legal for crowd control in India? | Explained

Story so far: At least one of the 80 protesters injured in police action during the Monday (July 20, 2026) march to Parliament called by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) sustained pellet gun injuries, according to a source at Lady Hardinge Medical College, where the victim is undergoing treatment. While the Delhi Police has denied using pellet guns and said such claims are “false and misleading”, the allegations have been strong against the Rapid Action Force, a specialised rapid reaction wing of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). This prompts questions over the legal framework governing the use of pellet guns and non-lethal weapons for crowd control in India.Also read | Why are pellet guns used as a ‘non-lethal’ crowd-control measure? | Explained The use of ‘non-lethal’ pellet guns was widely criticised during the 2024 farmers’ protests. Though the police denied using pellet guns, farmer leaders had alleged that several people were injured. They were also used in Manipur in 2023 and in Kashmir since 2010.What are pellet guns and how are they used?Pellet guns are used by police and armed forces for crowd control and dispersing protests.They fire cartridges containing pellets, usually metal, with sharp edges. Once fired, the cartridge bursts and disperses the pellets. They are commonly described as “non-lethal” or “less-lethal” weapons. They are also referred to as birdshot or dove shot, reflecting their original use for hunting.What does Indian law say about controlling unlawful assemblies?Pellet guns are not classified as firearms under the Arms Act, 1959, if their muzzle energy is below 20 joules. Pellet guns with muzzle energy above 20 joules are treated as firearms and require an arms licence. Low-powered pellet guns are considered air rifles and are not subject to the same licensing rules as firearms.Sections 148 to 151 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, govern the dispersal of unlawful assemblies. Under Section 148, an Executive Magistrate, the officer in charge of a police station, or, in their absence, a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may command an unlawful assembly, or an assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of public peace, to disperse. If the assembly does not disperse, the officer may disperse it by force and, if necessary, arrest and confine those forming part of it.Section 149 permits the District Magistrate or any authorised Executive Magistrate to seek the assistance of the armed forces where an assembly cannot otherwise be dispersed and it is necessary for public security. It further requires that the armed forces use “as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly.”Section 150 empowers a commissioned or gazetted officer of the armed forces to act in the absence of an Executive Magistrate where public security is manifestly endangered, subject to the Magistrate’s directions once communication becomes possible.Section 151 provides that no prosecution for acts purportedly done under Sections 148, 149 or 150 can be instituted without the sanction of the Central Government in the case of armed forces personnel or the State Government in other cases, while also protecting Executive Magistrates, police officers and persons acting in good faith under these provisions.These sections correspond to Sections 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).R.K. Vij, former Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, said the law mandates a graded use of force approach during crowd control. “Generally, according to the standard operating procedure for law and order, there should first be a warning, then tear gas, followed by a lathi charge, and only then can firing take place. The law strictly says that only the minimum force shall be used to disperse an unlawful assembly.”“Whenever non-lethal force is used against a crowd to manage or control a situation, the first principle is negotiation. It was not followed in this case,” said Yashovardhan Azad, former IPS officer and former Central Information Commissioner.What is the legality behind the use of pellet guns and force?Vrinda Grover, senior advocate, Supreme Court of India, said that the legality of pellet guns must be examined against the constitutional principles governing the use of force. “The use of pellet guns has to be measured on the touchstone and yardstick of legality, necessity and proportionality. Unwarranted and unauthorised use of pellet gun at an unarmed crowd is illegal,” she said.She said the first aspect to be seen is the nature of the crowd, whether it is armed, unarmed or engaged in rioting, and that the police and law enforcement must determine their response accordingly.“The people of the country has the fundamental right to protest and express themselves. The only restriction is that they cant use violence. The response shall be done accordingly. In this instance, on 20th July the crowd was unarmed protestors. They chose to exercise the freedom and it is legal and their right to do so,” she said.According to her, the Bureau of Police Research and Development under the Ministry of Home Affairs notes in the manual that “the crowd is not an enemy to be annihilated, but a fellow citizen who has to be dealt with in a manner that causes the least harm.”When all other alternative measures have failed, only then can force be used. The use of pellet guns against unarmed protesters is disproportionate and excessive and would amount to an illegal use of force.What have Indian courts said?The Jammu & Kashmir High Court had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns in Kashmir. The court said, “it is manifest that so long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable.”This petition was filed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association to prohibit the use of pellet guns as a method of crowd control. It requested that 12-bore pellet guns and cartridges containing pellets of any other bore be prohibited as a means of crowd control against any group of people, including protesters, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.Judges underlined that it was not a case where compensation was being sought or claimed for wrongdoing of any security force personnel or for violating any fundamental right of any citizen. “...But for discharge of public duty by such security force personnel who were being attacked by violent mobs during that period. Since the government has discharged its obligation, nothing more needs to be done in this PIL,” they observed.If someone is injured by pellet guns, what legal remedies are available?“Police are legally authorised to use pellet guns. However it is the judgment when and where to use that is crucial. Students protests are not where a professional police officer would or should. But then it is a subjective decision based on the perception of a police officer handling the crowd on the spot. He or she is accountable for having carried out lathi charge/used tear gas/water cannons/pellet guns,” said Ms. Meeran Borwanker, former Director General, National Crime Records Bureau.“Who sanctioned the use of pellet guns should be a matter of record, and it should be made available. What kind of assessment was made when it was crystal clear that they were unarmed protesters? It is illegal. Therefore, not just the person who fired, but everyone in the chain of command is responsible and liable,” said Ms. Grover.According to her, in public law, as well laid out by the Supreme Court, it is well established that victims are entitled to compensation, not just for the harm and injury and the cost of medical treatment, but also for the use of excessive force, violation of fundamental rights, and the State’s failure to protect the crowd and hence, accountability will have to be sought on all these counts.“When pellet guns are used, the questions that arise are whether their use was authorised by a senior official, whether the situation was overwhelming, whether it was extremely necessary, and whether the response was proportional to the threat,” Mr. Azad added.“The circumstances under which pellet guns were used, and whether their use was authorised, should certainly be inquired into. A judicial inquiry can determine guilt or innocence, followed by departmental action,” Mr. Azad said.Are pellet guns really “non-lethal”?As per a joint project of the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) in collaboration with the Omega Research Foundation (Omega), pellets, colloquially known as “birdshot,” are hunting rounds fired as a single group of tens to hundreds of high-velocity metal spheres. While indisputably lethal at close range, the minimum distance of use is designed to be far enough to ensure that pellets have lost sufficient velocity so as to render them non-lethal. However, even beyond the prescribed distance (in India the SOP is that the gun should be fired from a minimum distance of 500 feet), pellet guns have the ballistic capacity to penetrate some organs, such as the eyes, causing blindness because their energy is concentrated over a very small impact area, allowing it to penetrate tissue.The report notes that a U.S. #6 birdshot pellet, a size commonly used by Indian police, measures about 3 mm in diameter, weighs around 0.126 g, and leaves the muzzle at approximately 365 m/s, generating about 8 joules of kinetic energy. While this is below the commonly cited lethal threshold, the report says metal birdshot is nevertheless recognised as lethal at close range. It argues that factors such as energy density, projectile accuracy and the circumstances of use are more reliable indicators of lethality than kinetic energy alone.“Indian recognition of pellet guns as non-lethal is a misnomer. They do cause grievous injury and can result in permanent disability,” cautioned Ms. Grover.What are the existing international standards?As per the 2020 UN Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons, the force should be a last resort, used only when no reasonable alternative exists. It requires law enforcement to prioritise de-escalation, use only the minimum force necessary, and stop using force once it is no longer required.It also states that multiple-projectile weapons are generally inaccurate and, in most cases, incompatible with the principles of necessity and proportionality. It clearly states that “metal pellets, such as those fired from shotguns, should never be used.”As per the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990), force should only be used where less extreme means are insufficient. Governments should carefully evaluate and control the deployment of less-lethal weapons to minimise harm to uninvolved persons. The Principles discourage weapons that cause unwarranted injury or present an unnecessary risk.According to the Principles, “The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.”Principle 8 clearly states that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.With respect to policing unlawful assemblies, it states, “as everyone is allowed to participate in lawful and peaceful assemblies, in accordance with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Governments and law enforcement agencies and officials shall recognise that force and firearms may be used only in accordance with principles 13 and 14.”Principle 13 states that in the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent, law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary. Principle 14 says that firearms can only be used when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary.The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials also emphasises the principle of necessity and explains that in no case should this provision be interpreted to authorise the use of force that is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.