Ex-IPS officer, two victims move SC to decommission firearms, seek compensation for injured | Today’s news
According to PTI, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by a former IPS officer and two persons who alleged that they were injured by firearms fired during a recent parliamentary march led by the Janta Cockroach Party to protest in the state capital against the NEET paper leak.
The petition, filed by Yashovardhan Azad, Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori through advocate Vrinda Grover, sought a direction to “decommission or prohibit the use of fully or partially metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or gun action weapons (PAGs) for dispersal of civilian arms”.
Quick answers to key questions
•5 QUESTIONS
The petition calls for the decommissioning or ban of firearms used by law enforcement agencies to disperse civil gatherings following claims of injuries sustained by the petitioners during the protests.
Proponents argue that firearms are an unreasonable and dangerous tool for crowd control because of their unpredictable trajectory, making them unsuitable for dispersing peaceful assemblies.
The injuries occurred when members of the rapid action force fired bullets at the protesters who were fleeing the scene, even though there was no provocation from the protesters.
The petitioners are demanding exemplary compensation for all victims of pellet injuries caused by state intervention during the protests along with provision of medical treatment and rehabilitation.
The petitioners argue that the use of firearms for crowd control should not be legally permitted because it runs counter to the principles of reasonable and proportionate response outlined in the Constitution.
Read also | CJP Protest: ‘Craziest naarebazi’ mother-son duo reunited at Jantar Mantar — Video
Yashovardhan Jha Azad is a retired IPS officer who served as Special Director of Intelligence, Secretary (Security), Government of India and also as Central Information Commissioner. Azad served nearly four decades in the Indian Police Service.
Artist Kumar, 25, said he was present at the Sansad Chalo march on July 20 as a peaceful protester and claimed that he sustained bullet injuries from Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel without provocation or aggression on his part.
Wounded by RAF pellets
Mansoori, 26, said he was in Delhi’s Connaught Place after attending to passport and visa work and was injured by an RAF bullet, although there was no provocation or aggression on his part.
“On July 20, 2026, during the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march organized by the Cockroach Janata Party as part of a protest against the rampant paper leaks that are undermining the credibility of higher education in India, the Delhi Police used the assistance of CRPF’s Rapid Action Force for crowd control,” the plea said, according to news agency PTI.
“Complainant No. 2 and 3 personally witnessed that around 4-4.30 pm on that day, police and RAF personnel fired tear gas continuously and resorted to lathi charge and pushed the protesters towards the inner circle of Connaught Place, New Delhi,” it said.
Read also | Stalemate in Parliament may end today: Rahul to speak on anti-paper leak bill
The plea further aptly stated that no water cannons had been used and no announcements had been made of the impending use of force. As the protestors fled, with many raising their hands as if in “surrender” mode, regardless of any provocation, the RAF personnel suddenly fired their pistol(s) and released a wide shower of shrapnel-like bullets which penetrated the bodies of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, causing immediate pain and bleeding.
The petitioners submitted that the right to freedom of assembly is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right which can only be curtailed by reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
They added that restrictions imposed under Article 19(3) to pass the test of “reasonable restriction” must be demonstrably consistent with the doctrines of necessity and proportionality as laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court.
“…fire-action weapons are in themselves inappropriate for dispersing peaceful assemblies and the petitioners argue that the use of such weapons should be prohibited or decommissioned when deploying security personnel to deal with civilian assemblies,” the petitioners said.
They said the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the trajectory of the pellets fired made machine guns an unreasonable, arbitrary and dangerous tool unsuitable for deployment to disperse civilian assemblies.
Read also | CJP launches legal aid fund website for NEET protesters
“The very mechanism of the bullets disqualifies them from being a legally valid crowd control option, as it cannot be qualitatively argued that they fall within the ‘least amount of force necessary’ at any given time, given their erratic projectile kinetic motion,” the petition states.
Projectile action weapons are, by themselves, unsuitable for dispersing peaceful assemblies.
Apart from seeking complete or partial decommissioning or ban on the use of firearms, the petitioners sought exemplary compensation to all victims of bullet injuries caused by the July 20 state action in New Delhi, as well as provision of their complete medical care, treatment and rehabilitation.
