Supreme Court Directs Medical Treatment for Jantar Mantar Protesters Injured in Pellet Gun Action, Declines Interim Ban on Pellet Guns

July 30, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the concerned authorities to ensure immediate medical treatment for protesters who were allegedly injured during recent police action at Jantar Mantar, while making it clear that it cannot order a blanket ban on the use of pellet guns against civilian gatherings without a substantive challenge to the legal framework governing their use.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan heard petitions arising out of the alleged use of pellet guns by police while dispersing protesters at Jantar Mantar.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioners informed the Court that several protesters had sustained pellet injuries and sought urgent directions for their medical treatment. Taking note of the submissions, the Bench directed the concerned authorities to ensure that all injured persons receive appropriate and necessary medical care without delay.

However, the Court was not inclined to grant the petitioners’ broader request seeking a complete prohibition on the use of pellet guns against civilian assemblies. The Bench observed that such a sweeping direction could not be issued merely on the basis of a general plea, particularly when the petitions did not specifically challenge the statutory provisions, rules, regulations or standard operating procedures governing the use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies.

The Bench indicated that if the legality of pellet gun deployment is to be examined, the petitioners would have to mount a substantive challenge to the existing legal and regulatory framework rather than seek a blanket judicial prohibition.

At the same time, the Court emphasized that the immediate priority was to ensure that those injured during the police action receive proper medical attention. It clarified that providing medical treatment to the injured is a humanitarian obligation and should not await adjudication of the larger legal issues surrounding crowd-control measures.

The petitions form part of the Supreme Court’s continuing examination of police action during public protests. The Court is expected to consider broader questions relating to the legality of crowd-control measures and the use of force by law enforcement agencies after the pleadings are completed and the relevant statutory framework is placed before it.