The CRPF has denied an RTI request for information regarding the use of pellet guns during Delhi protests, claiming such actions do not constitute human rights violations.
- CRPF refused to provide data on pellet gun usage during July 20 protests.
- The force claims pellet gun deployment does not attract the 'human rights violation' exception of the RTI Act.
- Hospital records suggest at least 10 protesters were injured by pellets.
A significant legal clash has erupted between the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and activists over the use of pellet ammunition during protests in the national capital. In a formal response to a Right to Information (RTI) application, the CRPF stated that it is not liable to disclose information regarding the firing of pellets, asserting that the allegations made do not fall under the category of human rights violations.
Trinamool Congress leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale brought this to light via social media, sharing the CRPF's refusal. Gokhale had filed the RTI with the Rapid Action Force (RAF)—a specialized wing of the CRPF—seeking details about the operation on July 20, when students marched toward Parliament at the call of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The protests at Jantar Mantar had reportedly seen the deployment of pellet guns against unarmed youth.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that the CRPF is utilizing a strategic legal loophole. Under the RTI Act, security agencies are generally exempt from disclosing information unless the request pertains to corruption or human rights violations. By explicitly stating that pellet gun usage is not a human rights violation, the CRPF is effectively closing the door on transparency and legal accountability for its field operations in urban centers.
"The attempt to redefine the use of kinetic impact projectiles as a non-violation of human rights is a dangerous shift in police accountability standards."
Gokhale accused the current administration of a cover-up, stating that the government initially denied the use of pellets altogether. Once evidence emerged, the state shifted to denying the number of victims, and finally, to denying that the act itself was a violation of basic rights. He described the argument as "shocking" for a civilized democracy and announced his intention to move the Supreme Court to seek a judicial interpretation of the incident.
Historical Background: Pellet guns, often referred to as 'pump-action shotguns,' have been a point of global contention, particularly in conflict zones like Kashmir. Their tendency to cause permanent blindness and severe tissue damage has led various international human rights bodies to call for their ban in crowd-control scenarios.
| Entity | RTI Response | Outcome/Data |
|---|---|---|
| CRPF/RAF | Denied | Claimed no human rights violation occurred. |
| Lady Hardinge Hospital | Provided | 9 patients treated for pellet injuries. |
| Safdarjung Hospital | Provided | 1 patient treated for pellet injuries. |
| AIIMS | Denied | Cited privacy of personal information. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1: What is Saket Gokhale's next course of action?
He intends to submit the CRPF's RTI response to the Supreme Court to challenge the claim that pellet gun usage is not a human rights violation.
Question 2: How many people were confirmed injured based on hospital data?
Based on RTI responses from Lady Hardinge and Safdarjung hospitals, at least 10 individuals suffered pellet injuries on July 20.
