Two days after the brutal crackdown on thousands of young men and women who were marching towards parliament to meet their elected representatives, Delhi Police publicly denied having pellet guns or using them to disperse the crowds. After maintaining silence initially, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) is said to have launched an internal inquiry into the behaviour of its specialised unit – the Rapid Action Force (RAF) – whose personnel also mercilessly rained blows on the unarmed protestors. Earlier this week, the media reported the RAF chief’s apparent acknowledgement that the ‘force gradient’ applied by them was not in accordance with prescribed standards and training. There is also a media report of a purported late night general diary entry at the Parliament Street Police Station that an RAF personnel fired his shotgun loaded with cartridge of pellets on the orders of a deputy commissioner of police. Another media report quotes unnamed officials who are said to be privy to CRPF’s internal inquiry, that at least a dozen pellet guns were issued for the purpose of crowd control during the Sansad Chalo march on July 20. Amidst all this obfuscation in official circles, timely media investigation has revealed the truth in the form of photographs and medical reports of pellet injuries sustained by youngsters who bore the brunt of the brutality. Also read: Two Pellet Firing Victims Move Supreme Court Seeking Ban on Metallic Pellet Guns Against CiviliansMeanwhile, last week, Union home minister Amit Shah, under whose jurisdiction both Delhi Police and the CRPF falls, tabled a Bill in parliament to amend the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. If enacted, any person who prevents the singing of the National Song, i.e., Vande Mataram or causes disturbance to any ‘assembly engaged in its singing’ may be punished with a jail term of up to three months or a fine or both.The irony could not be starker. The Delhi Police’s insignia has our national emblem (Samrat Ashoka’s lion capital) at its crest with our national motto ‘satyameva jayate’ (truth alone triumphs) underlining it. RAF’s insignia has the universal symbol of peace – a dove in flight emblazoned on it. Yet, the truth and peace-keeping – both became casualties of the violent action precipitated by the powers that be. Sadly, there is no penalty for insulting our national motto, especially for holders of government office who publicly say things that are contrary to the truth.UN Principles on the Use of Force and FirearmsAs of April 2026, India is second only to Nepal among member-states that contribute their troops and police officers to the United Nations’ (UN) peace-keeping operations. Yet, our law enforcement agencies frequently ignore the UN’s Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms while performing their duties domestically. The first two paragraphs of this document, adopted in 1990, read as follows:“1. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. In developing such rules and regulations, Governments and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review.2. Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.”Further, paragraphs 12-14 of the UN Principles deal specifically with policing large assemblies of people as follows:“12. 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 14.13. 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.14. In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms in such cases, except under the conditions stipulated in principle 9.”India is a founding signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979. Our government is duty bound to ensure the promotion, protection, respect for and fulfilment of these human rights guarantees. Nevertheless, horrifying pictures of how the law enforcement personnel treated the young protestors during the thwarted Sansad Chalo march, became public thanks to social media platforms. Have we not learnt anything from the UN peace-keeping operations about handling large assemblages of unarmed people? Ironically, the Union home ministry’s website has a host of documents under its Police-II Division which contain policy guidelines for UN assignments for serving police personnel. While such foreign deputations are much sought after, the learnings from such situations do not seem to inform much of our domestic law enforcement efforts. Did the use of pellet guns and shock batons deployed last week, not violate the UN Basic Principles cited above?Certain facts about pellet gunsIn 2011, the Union government constituted a task force under the chairmanship of the then home secretary to recommend Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to deal with public agitations with non-lethal measures. After learning in 2012 that the Task Force had completed its work, I filed an RTI application with the Delhi Police seeking a copy of those SOPs. The Public Information Officer supplied a copy of the SOPs free of charge. Click here for the SOPs.In these SOPs, Subgroup 1 of this Task Force clearly recorded that the objective of the use of force is to disperse the unlawful assembly and not to punish them (para v., page 8). The reasoning given was: “India at the time of its independence has adopted a democratic set up. The Constitution provides right to assembly to its citizens to express their grievances peacefully…”.Also read: Hospital Record Confirms Gunshot Injury, Protester Says Security Forces Shot at Her on July 20Subgroup 2 examined the efficacy of several non-lethal and less lethal equipment for use to control agitating assemblages of people. These include water cannons, regular tear gas shells, singer and dye-marker grenades, plastic bullets for mob dispersal, various forms of taser, pepperball launchers, laser dazzlers, net guns, stink bombs and the LRAD (long range acoustic device). The Task Force did not examine the use of pellet guns at all! How, when and why did pellet guns become for law enforcement agencies, an approved weapon for using against citizens is a mystery.Later in 2016, law enforcement agencies tackled large scale public protests accompanied by stone-pelting in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) using pellet guns, apart from other very harsh measures. This resulted in several deaths and caused severe injuries to many young protestors, including loss of eyesight. As the use of pellet guns was not authorised by the 2011 SOPs, I filed an RTI application with the Ordnance Factory Board (no rechristened as Munitions India Ltd.) seeking copies of records relating to their sale and details of any study regarding their efficacy as anti-riot weapons. The Ammunition Factory at Khadki, Pune which eventually responded to the RTI application, rejected the request for all the information by invoking national security grounds under Section 8(1)(a) and commercial confidence under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Interestingly, along with their reply, they also shared a copy of the record of the internal correspondence in which they engaged to decide, whether or not the information I sought should be disclosed. The contents of two of these pages were revelatory. One note (see page 4 at the above link) said that anti-riot ammunition is supplied only to State Police Organisations and the other said, that the pellet gun which is officially known as the ‘12 Bore Pump Action Gun’ is a ‘Civil Trade’ item and is being issued to State Bank of India only (see page 5 at the above link). So, who authorised the sale of pellet guns to CRPF/RAF and when, becomes a big question that requires answers urgently. Interestingly, the SOP issued as recently as in August 2025 by the Puducherry Police Department which also falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the Union Home Ministry does not prescribe the use of pellet guns for the purpose of crowd dispersal.Procurement plans of CRPF include pellet gunsResearch on the CRPF’s website prior to writing this article, revealed two annual procurement plans (see images below) which include the purchase of pellet guns along with cartridges. The plan for the year 2019-20 includes a proposal to buy 280 guns of 12 Bore Pump Action type with Deflector and Muzzle Attachment at an estimated cost of Rs 1.61 crore and 42,000 cartridges of 12 bore shots for Rs 21 lakh. The procurement plan for the year 2020-21 includes the proposal to buy 60,074 cartridges of the same type, though the cost estimate is not mentioned.Images 1-2: Extracts from the CRPF’s annual procurement plans for the years 2019-21.Clearly, there was approval from the very top for the purchase of pellet guns and its ammunition, or else they would not have found their way into the CRPF’s procurement plans. Whether CRPF/RAF bought more such guns and ammunition in subsequent years is not known from the records displayed on their website. But how and when did pellet guns become part of the arsenal of law enforcement agencies is hinted at by the home ministry’s replies tabled in parliament between 2017 and 2018 (see images below).Images 3-5: Home ministry’s replies tabled in the Lok Sabha between 2017 and 2018.Between 2017 and 2018, the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs responded to three queries raised by MPs – two in the Lok Sabha and one in the Rajya Sabha – regarding the use of pellet guns in J&K and their impact. The sum and substance of the replies is as follows:The government had set up an expert committee in 2016 to explore alternatives to pellet guns as non-lethal weapons;The committee submitted it report and made certain recommendations; The government decided that the security forces would resort to various measures like PAVA-Chilli (shells and grenades), STUN-LAC (shells and grenades) and Tear Smoke shells to disperse ‘rioters’. However, if these measures proved to be ineffective in the dispersing of ‘rioters’, the use of pellet guns may be resorted to; andSOPs were issued and adopted by the J&K Police and special training was provided for three days for practicing the riot drill using less lethal weapons.What we do not know is whether these SOPs were made applicable outside J&K where the CRPF/RAF is called for controlling agitating crowds. These 2016 SOPs for the graded response using ‘less lethal measures’ are also not available in the public domain.But what is damning is the home ministry’s admission in the Rajya Sabha in 2018 that between January 2015 and December 2017, 17 protestors in J&K were killed by pellets fired by the security personnel (see images below).Images 6-8: Home ministry’s replies tabled in the Lok Sabha between 2017 and 2018.This frank admission of the home ministry that pellet guns had caused civilian deaths becomes very important in the recent context of the crackdown on the youth movement in Delhi. Who permitted their use against unarmed protestors during the Chalo Sansad march? Under which law or rule or SOPs was their use authorised, despite knowing very well that they can be lethal? Who was responsible for determining that the youth protestors were a ‘riotous mob’ on whom pellet guns could be used? Who authorised the actual issue of pellet guns to the RAF personnel from their armoury? These are fundamental questions which the Union Government and the CRPF/RAF must urgently answer to the citizenry.Use of shock batonsThe media also reported that shock batons were used for the first time to disperse protestors. Shock batons are also not mentioned in the 2011 SOP as a measure for crowd control. They are not included in the CRPF’s procurement plans up to 2027-28 available on their website. We do not know if the Delhi Police personnel used them. However, the CRPF website displays the qualitative requirements and trial directives for shock batons issued by the directorate general of the Border Security Force (BSF) in July 2021 (see images below). Images 9-11: Technical specifications for shock batons displayed on the CRPF’s website.The quality specifications mention the purpose for which shock batons will be used as: “self-defense and deterrence’. Their lifespan must be for five years, with the nine-volt battery (nickel or lithium based) required to last for at least one year. A shock baton must be capable of 1,000 bursts when fully charged and deliver an electric impulse of specified strength for a specific period of time. The manufacturer of shock batons is required to provide complete test reports from an NABL or government accredited laboratory. Even more interesting are the details of the officers who signed off on these quality specifications. They include representatives of BSF, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Assam Rifles, Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), National security Guard (NSG) and the Union home ministry’s Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D). The approving authority for these technical specifications was none other than Rakesh Asthana, the then director general of BSF. Later he was appointed commissioner, Delhi Police. To the best of our knowledge, no information about shock batons is available on the website of the Delhi Police. It is also noteworthy that none of the police departments in the states and the Union Territories including the Delhi Police were included in this process of approving the quality specifications for shock batons. Further, what is also unmistakably clear is that the shock batons are intended for use on both citizens and enemies alike. While CISF and CRPF are deployed within the country, all the other paramilitary forces are engaged on security duties along our borders with other countries. Who made this decision to buy these shock batons and use them like cattle prods on the youth protestors in Delhi? We as citizen taxpayers have the right to know. But the Union Government and the CRPF currently have an escape route from this obligation to provide answers.Few readers will remember that the CRPF was among the first 18 intelligence and security agencies which were excluded from the purview of the RTI Act in 2005. CRPF like others on this list is required to disclose only such information that relates to allegations of corruption or human rights violations, nothing else.Also read: Second Diary Entry Shows Delhi DCP Authorising Use of Pellet Guns in WritingThe Union government is also barred from disclosing any other information such agencies share with it. But every year, the CRPF deals with thousands of RTIs that come its way. There is no analysis of the contents of such RTI applications in the public domain. Even the CRPF’s RTI implementation data published in the annual reports of the Central Information Commission (CIC) is not entirely reliable. For example, from a mere 180 RTI applications in 2008-09, the first year for which comprehensive RTI statistics are available for CRPF, the numbers have gone up to 3,117 requests in 2024-25. Rejections have ranged between a low of 27% (2013-14) to a high of 86% (2016-17) during this period. Most of these rejections are under Section 24 of the Act which guarantees the CRPF/RAF exclusion from transparency obligations except for allegations of corruption or human rights violation. Since 2023-24, CRPF has begun rejecting a small number of RTIs for other ‘unspecified reasons’ which are not permissible under the RTI Act. However, the quantum of RTI application fee that CRPF has collected since 2018-19, the first year for which data is available, has been declining. In 2024-25, the application fee it has collected accounts for less than a quarter (23%) of the RTI applications. Does this mean that more than 75% of the RTI applicants approaching CRPF are from below the poverty fee line category who need not pay any fee for seeking or obtaining information under the RTI Act? The CIC has not bothered to probe the manner of data reporting by CRPF and several other such authorities whose RTI disposal figures indicate similar discrepancies (see images below).Image 12: CRPF’s RTI application figures.Image 13–14: CRPF’s Rejection of RTI applications.Image 15: Data discrepancy in CRPF’s RTI fee collection figures.Thankfully, CRPF’s expenditure pattern of the annual budget sanctioned by Parliament is available on the Union Home Ministry’s website. The spending on arms and ammunition is a very small proportion of its annual budget. The expenditure is also not uniform or steadily increasing or decreasing over the years (see image below). Image 16: CRPF’s expenditure and budget estimates since 2019.This is perhaps because the expenditure is incurred as per requirements identified internally every year. Nevertheless, there is no reason why organisations like CRPF/RAF must continue to enjoy special status under the RTI Act, when the three defence forces are fully covered by the transparency obligations like other public authorities. The latter make use of the permissible exemptions under Section 8 and 9 of the Act liberally, in order to protect sensitive information whose disclosure may cause harm to the protected public interests. Given the worrisome track record of the CRPF with regard to the manner in which it has used force against civilians, we must demand that it be fully covered by this transparency law and become directly accountable to the people like other public authorities. The government must bring the CRPF fully under the RTI Act without any delay. We the people, who pay taxes, have the right to know.Venkatesh Nayak is director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. Views are personal.