Four protesters were injured by pellet guns during a July 20 rally in Gurugram, thrusting the RAF’s ‘sensitive policing’ motto and manual into the limelight. The victims have approached the Supreme Court demanding a ban on pellet weapons.

Key Takeaways

  • Four civilians injured by RAF pellet guns in Gurugram on July 20
  • Serious questions raised about the effectiveness of RAF’s ‘Sensitive Policing’ manual
  • Victims filed a Supreme Court petition seeking a ban on pellet guns

During a protest in Gurugram on July 20, four civilians suffered severe injuries after being struck by pellet rounds fired by the Rapid Action Force (RAF). The incident has placed RAF’s “Sensitive Policing” doctrine and its operational manual under intense public scrutiny.

The injured parties report that they were targeted without warning, resulting in facial, ocular, and leg injuries. Human‑rights groups swiftly condemned the use of pellet ammunition and called for an immediate ban.

In their Supreme Court petition, the victims argue that the deployment of pellet guns constitutes excessive force against civilians and violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court has scheduled hearings to examine the matter.

Historical Background

Pellet guns have been employed by Indian police since the 1990s as a crowd‑control measure. Numerous incidents of serious injuries—and occasional fatalities—have sparked both national and international criticism of the practice.

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this case not only challenges RAF’s training protocols but also amplifies broader debates on police reform and civil liberties across the nation.

"The indiscriminate use of pellet guns is a grave violation of democratic rights," says human‑rights expert Dr. Anita Sharma.
Did You Know?: The first recorded official use of pellet guns in India dates back to a 1993 protest in Delhi.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the current legal stance on pellet gun usage?

A: Police are still permitted to use pellet guns under certain circumstances, but the Supreme Court’s pending decision may reshape this policy.

Q2: What compensation are the victims seeking?

A: They demand medical assistance, rehabilitation, and a permanent ban on pellet guns against civilians.