New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30) directed the Delhi government to ensure adequate medical treatment for protesters injured in firing during the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ demonstration. The direction came during a hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the use of metallic pellet guns for crowd control against civilian assemblies.The PIL was moved earlier this week by two pellet injury victims, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, with Yashovardhan Azad, former Intelligence Bureau special director and former Central Information Commissioner as the first petitioner. They were represented by advocate Vrinda Grover.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the interim direction. Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing that police regulations permit the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances and that a challenge to their use may not be maintainable unless the relevant regulations are challenged, reports Live Law.Grover clarified that the challenge was confined to the use of metallic pellets against civilian assemblies. “I am not saying pellet guns should not be in the armoury of the RAF or not. Here it is different. They have used metallic pellets,” Grover submitted.Justice Bagchi interjected, saying that the relief sought – a ban on use of pellet guns to disperse civilian gatherings – would be vague unless the underlying regulations are challenged. He said that the court was “not averse to examining use of pellets in a particular incident”, but the petitioners must show if it was permissible under a “graded approach” governing crowd control.Grover submitted that metallic pellets had been recovered from the petitioners’ bodies and argued that she had been unable to locate any Delhi Police standing order authorising their use. She said the petitioners had “with difficulty” obtained a 2016 Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) document through the Right to Information Act and requested the Union government to place any applicable guidelines on record, if they exist.“There is no standing order of the Delhi Police which permits the use of pellets. That is why my difficulty arises, and I have to rely on BPRD. If there is such a standing order, the Union may place it on record. I am sure the Union and the Delhi police do not wish to fire pellets on innocent youngsters,” she said, Live Law reports.Also read: Delhi Police DCP Ordered RAF to Fire Pellets on Unarmed Protesters: Report on Diary EntryThe court also observed that while it was “completely in agreement with pleas of no-violence principle when it comes to agitation of students or persons expressing dissatisfaction with a government policy… But there is also the question of elements hijacking students’ protests,” reports the Hindu.“A protest must have started with a bona fide purpose, but it may end up as a vehicle for various ulterior purposes… The hijacking may even be intended to sabotage the bona fide protests,” Justice Bagchi said.Subsequently, Grover pointed out that one of the injured petitioners was not receiving adequate medical care, to which the bench directed the Delhi government to ensure proper treatment for the petitioners as well as other similarly placed injured persons.Grover also requested directions to preserve ammunition logs relating to the July 20 incident, noting that the Supreme Court’s July 28 interim order directing preservation of CCTV footage, drone and body-camera recordings, and wireless logs did not specifically mention ammunition records. The Solicitor General assured the court that all material necessary for the investigation would be preserved.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that the Union would assist it on the issue.Background to July 30 PIL hearingThe petition arises out of the July 20 protest over exam paper leaks. The petitioners say Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel fired pump-action guns loaded with metallic pellets after using tear gas and lathi charge to disperse protesters. They say no warnings were issued and no water cannons were deployed before force was escalated.As per the petition, Singh and Mansoor witnessed the firing of the pellet guns, which released a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, which penetrated their bodies, causing immediate pain and bleeding. Both underwent surgery at Lady Hardinge Medical College to remove pellets lodged in their bodies.The petition contends that pellet guns are typically .12-bore pump-action shotguns that discharge cartridges containing hundreds of metallic pellets that spread over a wide area rather than striking a single target. This, say the petitioners, makes the weapon inherently inaccurate and creates a high risk of serious injuries, particularly to the eyes and other vital organs, even when fired at non-vital parts of the body.The plea argues that the use of metallic pellets is per se unsuitable for dispersing civilian assemblies as it fails the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness. It also relies on the 2020 United Nations Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, which advises against the use of metal pellets for crowd control.It also seeks exemplary compensation, medical treatment and rehabilitation for all those injured in the July 20 incident. It cites an internal RAF verification, reportedly conducted after public outrage over the firing incidents, which found that seven rounds of pellets were shot by RAF personnel in the Rajiv Chowk (Connaught Place) area on July 20, injuring five protesters.