Controversy Surrounds Pellet Gun Use Amid Delhi Student Protests

New Delhi, India Jul 22, 2026 ALN: Reports that security forces used pellet guns during the student movement unfolding in Delhi have once again brought the controversial crowd-control weapon into focus. The use of pellet guns has been a contentious issue in India, particularly in regions where civil unrest has been prevalent. The allegations stem from the July 20 march to Parliament organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which has since evolved into a broader student-led movement over the alleged NEET paper leak and wider demands for accountability from the Union government. This context of student activism highlights the growing discontent among young people regarding educational policies and governance.

Delhi Police has denied the allegations, calling reports of pellet gun and shock baton use “false and misleading.” However, according to a report by The Hindu, 25-year-old protester Shaikh Irshad Mansoori underwent surgery after doctors reportedly found multiple pellets lodged in his face and upper body. If confirmed, it would be the first known instance of pellet guns being used against civilian protesters in Delhi. This incident raises critical questions about the methods employed by law enforcement during protests, particularly in urban settings where the potential for civilian casualties is heightened.

The allegations have also revived longstanding questions about why pellet guns are used, how they are meant to be deployed, and why they continue to attract criticism despite being classified as “non-lethal” weapons by governments that authorise their use. The classification of pellet guns as “non-lethal” has been disputed by human rights advocates who argue that such weapons can cause severe injuries and fatalities. This debate underscores the tension between maintaining public order and protecting civil rights in a democratic society.

What are pellet guns?

The pellet guns used by Indian security forces are not air guns used for sport or recreation. They are 12-gauge pump-action shotguns that fire cartridges containing around 500 to 600 small metal pellets. When fired, the pellets spread over a wide area instead of striking a single target, increasing the risk of unintended injuries to bystanders. Unlike conventional rifles, which fire a single bullet, pellet-firing shotguns discharge hundreds of pellets simultaneously, raising concerns about the indiscriminate nature of such weapons.

Why are they called 'less-lethal' weapons?

Pellet guns were introduced as an alternative to live ammunition during crowd-control operations. The idea was to disperse violent crowds while reducing the likelihood of deaths compared with conventional firearms. The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has itself described them as the “least lethal” option available for crowd control. However, international policing standards prefer the term “less-lethal” rather than “non-lethal,” because such weapons can still cause serious injury, permanent disability, or death. This distinction is important in discussions about the ethical implications of using such weapons in civilian contexts.

When were pellet guns introduced in India?

Pellet guns were introduced in Jammu and Kashmir in 2010 after more than 100 protesters were killed in police firing during that year’s unrest. Their use expanded significantly during the 2016 unrest following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani. Hundreds of civilians suffered pellet injuries, many involving the eyes, with several people permanently losing their vision. This history of use in Kashmir has contributed to a growing perception of pellet guns as tools of oppression rather than instruments of crowd control.

More recently, allegations of pellet gun use also surfaced during the 2024 farmers’ protests along the Punjab-Haryana border, though the police denied those claims as well. The recurring nature of these allegations indicates a pattern of concern regarding the application of force by law enforcement agencies in the face of civil dissent.

What did the government do after the 2016 Kashmir unrest?

The widespread criticism following the 2016 unrest prompted the Union government to constitute an Expert Committee on July 26, 2016, to explore alternatives to pellet guns. According to replies by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in Parliament, the committee submitted its report, and the government said its recommendations had been taken into account while framing operational guidelines. The government told Parliament that security forces should first use alternatives such as:

• PAVA (chilli) shells and grenades

• STUN-LAC shells and grenades

• Tear smoke shells

Only if these measures prove ineffective in dispersing violent protesters should pellet guns be used. This approach reflects an attempt to balance the need for effective crowd control with the imperative to minimize harm to civilians.

What rules govern the use of pellet guns?

The MHA has told Parliament that personnel receive three days of specialised training before using less-lethal weapons. The training covers riot-control drills, operation of less-lethal weapons, law and order in Jammu and Kashmir, and practical firing exercises. The government also said that the Jammu and Kashmir Police and other law-enforcement agencies follow a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) while dispersing unlawful assemblies.

According to the MHA, the SOP requires that:

• less-lethal weapons be used in accordance with an established use-of-force policy;

• force be used only to restore peace and disperse violent unlawful assemblies;

• only the minimum force necessary be used to minimise casualties while ensuring the safety of both security personnel and civilians.

The hierarchy of force also includes rubber and plastic bullets. The existence of these guidelines suggests an effort to regulate the use of force, although the effectiveness and adherence to these protocols remain subjects of scrutiny.

What do official figures show?

In a reply to Parliament in 2018, the Union government said 17 protesters or other persons were killed by pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir during 2016 and 2017. It declined to disclose further details, citing national security. These figures highlight the lethal potential of pellet guns, raising concerns about their use in crowd control and the accountability of law enforcement agencies.

Why do pellet guns remain controversial?

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly criticised pellet-firing shotguns because they disperse hundreds of metal pellets over a wide area, making it impossible to precisely target a single individual. As a result, anyone in the vicinity can be struck, increasing the risk of indiscriminate and life-changing injuries. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has documented deaths, severe eye injuries, and permanent visual impairment resulting from pellet gun use in Kashmir. In its 2019 update, the OHCHR described the 12-gauge pump-action shotgun firing metal pellets as “one of the most dangerous weapons used in Kashmir” and said such weapons should be used only in accordance with the strict principles of necessity and proportionality.

While Delhi Police continues to deny using pellet guns during the July 20 protest, the allegations have once again drawn attention to a debate that has persisted for more than a decade: whether a weapon that can cause permanent disability and indiscriminate injuries can be justified as a crowd-control measure. This ongoing controversy reflects broader societal tensions regarding governance, civil liberties, and the role of law enforcement in a democratic society. As protests continue and the public demands accountability, the discourse surrounding the use of pellet guns remains a critical issue warranting further examination and dialogue.