WHETHER THE USE OF PELLET GUNS FOR CROWD CONTROL VIOLATE

FUNDMANENTAL RIGHTS AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE BANNED?

1. The law of law enforcement in its present form today is derived from a set of customary
international rules and general principles of law 1. In international law, the law of law
enforcement is governed primarily by two codes, the Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials, 1779 and Basic Principles on use of force and firearms by Law
Enforcement Officials, 1990. Domestically, the procedures and standards for crowd
control are enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974. Law Enforcement should
comply with the internationally accepted guidelines with utmost respect for right to life2.

2. States should ensure that the use of ‘non-lethal weapons’ such as the tasers, rubber or
plastic bullets and other projectiles are tested and reviewed for use with respect to right to
life of a person. The so called ‘non-lethal weapons’ must be employed subject to strict
requirements of necessity and proportionality 3. States should refrain from using ‘non-
lethal’ weapons in case the crowd can be controlled by less harmful means especially in
situations involving the exercise of right of peaceful assembly4.

3. As observed by the Supreme Court, any international convention not inconsistent with the
fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into Wandarmulk’s law to
enlarge the meaning and content thereof, to promote objective of constitutional
guarantees5. Rules of customary international law which are consistent with the municipal
laws are deemed to be a part of the domestic legislation and therefore should be followed
by the Courts of Law6. It will be demonstrated to the court that the use of pellet guns, the
so called “less lethal weapon”, falls short of Wandarmulk’s international obligations and
domestic law and violates all the principles which form the bedrock of the two important
international conventions to which Wandarmulk is a signatory and the article 21 of the
constitution.

1
AIB 6 Geneva Academy, Use of Force in Law Enforcement and Right to Life: The role of Human Rights Council
5 (2016).
2
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 3
(2019).
3
Basic Principles on use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para 14.
4
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 4
(2019).
5
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 (India).
6
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. U.O.I and Ors, AIR 1996 SC 2715 (India).
The use of pellet guns for law enforcement operations in Wakanda is illegal and does
not satisfy the requirement of legality

4. Only duly authorized less lethal weapons must be deployed for the use of Law
Enforcement authorities. The domestic law should stipulate conditions for the use of less
lethal weapons and impose limitations on their use in order to minimise risk and injury to
citizens7. The principle 3 of the Basic Principle code stipulates the necessity to review the
less lethal weapons to minimize risk to uninvolved persons and consequently regulate its
usage8.

5. It is submitted that the usage of metal pellets9 in Wakanda and on civil protestors at
Wandarstadt is contrary to the standards laid down in section 130 which requires the use
of “as little force” and “as little injury to public and property” as may be necessary to
dispose of an assembly. It has been demonstrated further in the submissions that the use
of pellet guns violates the said standards and consequently national legislations making
their use illegal. Further it is submitted, that the “standard operating procedures to deal
with public agitations with non-lethal weapons” as released by BPRD does not discuss
the use of pellet guns and fails to recognise it as a ‘non-lethal weapon’ that can be used by
the police10. Further the TVSN Prasad Committee report suggested the government to
develop and use alternatives to pellet guns like rubber bullets or PAVA shells 11. Thus, the
case of illegality of use of pellet guns is made out.

The use of pellet guns by Law Enforcement Authorities violate the principle of
precaution

6. The principle 5(b) of Basic Principles stipulate that wherever use of lawful force is
necessary, law enforcement authorities must minimize “damage and injury” and respect
and preserve human rights12. The law enforcement authorities must give special

7
UNHR, Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement 5 (2020).
8
Basic Principles on use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para 3.
9
Moot Clarification, para 32.
10
BPRD, Standard Operating Procedure to deal with Public Agitations with Non-Lethal Weapons 25-33 (2011).
11
V Singh, Pellet guns are here to stay; committee suggests alternatives, The Hindu, Oct. 1, 2016.
12
Basic Principles on use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para 3.
 consideration to people vulnerable to use of force such as women, children and
elderly13.Further a duty is incumbent upon the state to pre-plan operations to discharge
unlawful assemblies14.

7. According to Omega Research Foundation, the pellet guns in use at Wakanda are in
essence pump action short guns which disperse 500 tiny lead bullets in all directions and
are not meant for crowd control15. Further, the injury to a nineteen month toddler16 clearly
demonstrate the fact that pellet guns violate the said requirement of distinguishing people
who are vulnerable to the effects of use of force as enunciated above. It is also evident
that the use of pellet guns at Wakanda caused injuries to various bystanders who were not
a part of the protests17. Also, the use of pellet guns and the consequent chaos at the
freedom square clearly demonstrate the lack of planning by the authorities 18. Therefore, it
is humbly submitted that the use of pellet guns short fall on the count that it violates the
principle of precaution as demonstrated.

The use of pellet guns by Law Enforcement Authorities violate the principle of necessity

8. The principle of necessity requires that (a) the use of force should be for a legitimate
purpose and no more force should be used “as is necessary for the purpose” and (b) no
excess force should be used than required in the said circumstances and risk of grave
injury and death should be minimised. Force should not be used against a person who
offers no resistance19. The use of any ‘non-lethal’ weapon should keep in mind the
potential of creating panic in an assembly 20.According to the ECHR, any use of
unjustifiable force violates the right to freedom from torture or degrading treatment21.

9. It is submitted that the use of pellet guns is completely violative of the principles
enunciated above. As earlier demonstrated, the use of pellet guns fails to distinguish
between innocent bystanders and trouble makers thereby making their use unsuitable for
13
UNHR, Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement 6 (2020).
14
McCann v. United Kingdom, 21 ECHR 97 GC.
15
B Perrigo, Faces in the Darkness: Victims of non-lethal weapons in Kashmir, TIME, Sept. 6, 2018.
16
Moot Problem, Paragraph 6.
17
Moot Problem, Paragraph 4.
18
Moot Problem, Paragraph 14.
19
AIB 6 Geneva Academy, Use of Force in Law Enforcement and Right to Life: The role of Human Rights Council
6 (2016).
20
UNHR, Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement 6 (2020).
21
Bouyid v. Belgium, Appl. No. 23380/90 (ECHR).
 riot control. As pointed out by the United Nations, the use of pellet guns has resulted in
multiple deaths and serious injuries to score of civilians between 2016 and 2018 in
Wakanda. Further the report notes that use of pellet guns is highly inaccurate and
indiscriminate22. The government by its own admission reported 17 deaths in past three
years23. However the Wakanda assembly puts forth more chilling details whereby it was
admitted that 6221 people received injuries and 728 received eye injuries 24.As facts
suggest, the use of pellet guns at Freedom Square caused chaos within the assembly
leading to further chain of unfortunate events. Therefore it is submitted that the use of
pellet guns fall short as it violates the principle of necessity.

The use of pellet guns by Law Enforcement Authorities violates the principle of
proportionality

10. According to the 1979 Code of Conduct, use of force should not be disproportionate to
the legitimate aim sought to be achieved25. The Basic Principles also reiterate the above in
clear and concise terms26. The principle of proportionality comes into play when the
principle of necessity is made which is essentially a question of fact. As OCHR suggests,
the use of pellet guns should not be targeted at head or neck and should only be used in
direct fire with aim below the waist27. Further the use of metal pellets is contrary to the
international law28.
11. The court should take note of the stark facts which clearly show that pellet guns fall short
of all the three requirements as dealt with and discussed above. As data suggests the pellet
guns have the potential to cause blindness. For example, a pellet gun perforated the left
retina of a protestor at Wakanda in 2016 causing permanent loss of vision. Further
multiple pellets are lodged in the victim permanently which according to medical
professionals is hazardous and cannot be removed. For example, X rays of a protestor at
Wakanda show pellets lodged in the brain, shoulder and chest causing 10% vision loss
and immense amount of pain29. According to Omega Research Foundation, the use of

22
Human Rights Commissioner, Report on situation of Human Rights in Kashmir 23 (2018).
23
Ministry of Home Affairs, Protestors killed by pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir, Unstarred Question 511,
Rajya Sabha, 2018.
24
Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, Unstarred A.Q. No.330, 12 January 2018.
25
Code of Conduct of Law Enforcement Officials, art 3, 1979.
26
Basic Principles on use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para 5.
27
UNHR, Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement 36 (2020).
28
Ibid.
29
B Perrigo, Faces in the Darkness: Victims of non-lethal weapons in Kashmir, TIME, Sept. 6, 2018.
 pellet guns should be banned as no amount of modification can make it compliant with
international norms30. Use of pellet guns therefore is not at all proportionate and does not
minimise risk of injury or death.

12. In light of the preceding discussion, it is humbly submitted that the use metal pellet guns
is highly disproportionate and indiscriminate and therefore violates the international
norms regulating the use of so called ‘less-lethal’ firearms thereby falling short of
Wandarmulk’s commitment to uphold international law. Further on basis of above
contentions, it is submitted that the use of pellet guns also fall short of standards
enunciated in section 130 of Criminal Procedure Code and violate the article 19(1)(a) and
21 of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the State Human Rights Commission has
already flagged the use of pellet guns as it violates the right to life 31. Hence it is humbly
requested to the hon’ble court to outlaw the use of pellet guns and issue necessary
directions to the Union and State governments.

30
Ibid.
31
Ravi Nair, Pellet guns in Kashmir: The lethal use of non-lethal weapons, The Wire, 21 Jul., 2016.