3 Protesting Farmers Lose Eyesight After Being Hit by Pellet Guns

Is It Legal for Police to Use Pellet Guns on Protesters?

Newsreel Asia Insight #134
Feb. 17, 2024

During the ongoing farmers’ protests, three farmers have lost their vision due to the Haryana police’s use of pellet guns, according to a media report. Given that pellet guns are considered less lethal than firearms yet can cause internal organ damage and blindness, is it permissible for law enforcement officials to employ such weapons?

Protesting farmers are advancing towards Delhi, demanding a legal guarantee for the minimum support price, among other demands, while police in Haryana are blocking their entry into the national capital. The Indian Express quotes Punjab Health Minister Dr. Balbir Singh as saying that at least three farmers have lost their eyes. “We have got them checked and their eyes cannot be saved. The Haryana Police not only used water cannons and tear gas shells, but also bullets and pellet guns.”

There has been significant criticism regarding the use of pellet guns, which have been primarily used in the Jammu and Kashmir region to manage protests and unrest, due to the severe injuries caused not only to protesters but also to bystanders. Now, law enforcement officials in other states are also beginning to use pellet guns.

Injuries

First, let’s look at the nature of injuries caused by a pellet gun.

A pellet gun fires a large number of small, round metal pellets with a single shot, which spread out over a wide area. The severity of the injuries depend on several factors, including the distance from which they are fired, the part of the body hit and the density of the pellets.

At longer distances, pellets may cause superficial injuries, such as bruises or abrasions. These are generally less severe and often heal over time without causing permanent damage. If fired from a closer range, pellets can penetrate the skin and soft tissues, leading to more serious injuries, including significant bleeding, damage to muscles and may require surgical intervention to remove the pellets.

One of the most concerning aspects of pellet gun injuries is the high risk of eye injuries, including blindness. Pellets can cause severe trauma to the eyes, leading to ruptures, retinal detachment or complete loss of vision. Eye injuries from pellet guns have resulted in a significant number of individuals, particularly in conflict zones like Kashmir, suffering from partial or total blindness.

Pellets can also cause fractures if they hit bones with enough force. Such injuries may require surgical treatment and can lead to long-term mobility issues.

Although less common, there is a risk of pellets penetrating deeper into the body and causing damage to internal organs. Such injuries can be life-threatening and require immediate medical attention.

Beyond the physical injuries, individuals hit by pellet guns can also suffer from significant psychological trauma. The pain, fear, and potential permanent disabilities can lead to long-term psychological issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

Legality

In India, the use of pellet guns began around 2010 as a non-lethal option to control mobs, especially given the violent protests in Kashmir. The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and other security forces have used these weapons under the premise that they are less lethal than firearms. However, there has been significant criticism regarding their use due to the severe injuries, including blindness, caused to protesters, many of whom have been bystanders or non-violent participants.

The use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies in India, particularly for crowd control, is not explicitly mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the Police Act. Instead, the legality and guidelines for the use of force, including so-called less lethal weapons like pellet guns, are derived from broader provisions within these laws that govern police conduct and the use of force in maintaining public order and managing assemblies.

The CrPC provides the legal framework for the criminal justice system in India, including how investigations are conducted, how arrests are made and how various types of evidence are to be handled. The use of force is generally covered under sections related to police conduct during arrests, such as Section 46, which deals with how an arrest is to be made, and the management of public assemblies and riots. For instance, Section 129 allows the police to use force, to the extent necessary to disperse an unlawful assembly, but it does not specify the types of force or weapons that may be used.

The Police Act of 1861 outlines the roles, responsibilities and powers of the police forces. It does not specifically mention pellet guns but provides a general framework for the conduct of police officers, including the use of force in the execution of their duties. The Act emphasises the maintenance of public order and the prevention of obstruction, nuisance or disturbance to the public.

The specific guidelines for the use of such less lethal weapons are often only detailed in internal standard operating procedures (SOPs) of the police and central paramilitary forces. These SOPs are expected to align with the basic legal framework while ensuring that the use of force is minimal, proportional and as non-lethal as possible.

Given the absence of explicit legal provisions for pellet guns, their use has been subject to scrutiny and legal challenges, particularly concerning the proportionality and necessity of their use in crowd control situations. The debate around their legality often centres on whether their use complies with the principles of necessity, proportionality and minimum harm as required by both Indian law and international human rights standards.

The National Human Rights Commission and various human rights organisations have raised concerns about the use of pellet guns, urging for a review of their use and advocating for the adoption of more humane methods of crowd control. In response to public outcry and legal petitions, the government has occasionally indicated looking into alternatives and revising the standard operating procedures to make the use of pellet guns more regulated and less harmful.