Delhi protests: Former judge, ex-Home Secretary among panel confirm use of pellet guns, electric batons
A People's Tribunal headed by a former High Court judge and including a former Union Home Secretary has concluded that security forces used excessive and unlawful force against protesters in Delhi on 20 July 2026, including pellet-firing weapons and electric batons.
The Tribunal was convened by the Constitutional Conduct Group, a collective of retired civil servants. It was chaired by Justice Anjana Prakash, senior advocate and former Judge of the Patna High Court. Its other members were Gopal Krishna Pillai (former Union Home Secretary), Aditi Mehta (former civil servant), Mohan Gopal (former Director of the National Judicial Academy), and academics Radha Kumar and Tanika Sarkar. Harsh Mander was convenor.
Its report, covering the protests over exam paper leaks, says the force used "went beyond what was proportionate." It was based on two days of hearings on 27 and 28 September, where 25 people testified in person, online or in writing. They included injured protesters, doctors, lawyers, journalists and former retired police officers.
On pellets, the Tribunal found that "pellets were fired at protesters in Central Delhi at more than one location" on the afternoon of 20 July. Four witnesses described being hit, and medical records and an RTI response backed their accounts. The RTI response recorded at least ten people injured by pellets.
One witness, a Delhi University student identified as Samar (name changed), told the Tribunal that a police officer aimed a pellet gun at him and fired. He said pellets struck him in the eye, that doctors at one hospital could not operate because the injuries were too extensive, and that around 200 pellets were in his body. Another witness, Nisha, said pellets hit her ear and left it hanging.
The report ties the firing to the Rapid Action Force. It cites the force's General Diary, which records that its Deputy Commandant fired two rounds of ballistic cartridges with plastic pellets "to control the crowd" on the orders of the DCP, Zone-1. The diary also records 55 rounds of non-electrical shell and 15 rounds of electrical shell. A CRPF inquiry, as reported by the Indian Express and cited in the report, found at least seven rounds of ammunition containing metal pellets.
The Tribunal said the firing was not shown to meet the RAF's own standard.
On electric batons, the Tribunal found that they "were used." It relied on witness accounts and a video presented by filmmaker Varrun Sukhraj. A witness named Ali said that everyone who touched the first barricade received an electric current. Another, Meera, said RAF personnel were using electric batons. The video shows a woman security officer, whose uniform appears to identify her as CRPF, applying a baton-like device to standing female protesters. A crackling sound is audible. The report itself cautions that the exact nature of the device, and whether it delivered a shock, cannot be confirmed from the recording alone.
The report notes that international guidance describes such devices as incompatible with the principle of necessity when used against people who are not resisting. It adds that the UN Committee against Torture has said such devices could in some situations amount to torture.
The Tribunal also found that a baton fitted with nails was held by a police official at the site, and that on witness testimony such lathis were used to strike protesters. It found that expired tear gas shells were used, and that tear gas was fired repeatedly in a confined area, at people moving away, and in at least three instances towards individuals.
In its overall conclusions, the report says it "finds evidence of all of these" on nail-studded batons, electric batons, expired tear gas and sexual assault of women protesters. It calls these serious violations of the principles of proportionate and minimum necessary force. It calls for a complete ban on deploying pellet guns against civilian assemblies, and says it is a "misnomer" to call the weapon a pellet gun. This follows submissions by senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, who argued that such weapons cannot be aimed with precision and can cause loss of eyesight.
The report says protesters were confined between barricades. It argues the evidence suggests the aim was not dispersal but to "unleash brutal force." It also quotes remarks attributed to personnel at the scene, such as "yahi saza hai" (this is the punishment).
The police have a different account. The Delhi Police deny using pellets, and their Supreme Court affidavit, as published, does not mention pellet guns, 12-bore guns or the RAF. It says the assembly was unlawful because no permission had been granted, that barricades were breached, that force was graded, and that about 240 police personnel and about 200 protesters were injured. It says 2,873 persons face criminal charges. The affidavit also describes the object seen in videos as a baton fitted with nails as a protester's flag stick. The Tribunal rejected this, saying the claim that the videos were unrelated to the protest "is not borne out."
The report lists its own limits. Delhi Police and RAF representatives were invited but did not reply or appear. The Tribunal could not obtain the original affidavit and relied on a published account. It makes no finding on how many rounds were fired, whether the pellets were plastic or metal, or which round hit which witness. The RAF ammunition log has been ordered preserved by the Supreme Court and was not available to it. A related petition seeking a ban on metallic pellets is pending before the Supreme Court. The RTI application cited in the report was filed by Saket Gokhale, a spokesperson of the All India Trinamool Congress.
The report recommends narrowing the weapons permitted against public assemblies, weapon-specific protocols listing likely injuries, prompt medical aid, visible identification of all personnel, preservation and disclosure of ammunition and medical records, and accountability for those who ordered or carried out unlawful force.
Comments