The events surrounding the July 20 protests in Delhi have opened a new and deeply contentious chapter in India's debate over crowd-control tactics. At the centre of the controversy is a question that authorities have neither conclusively answered nor fully dismissed: were pellet guns used against protesters in the national capital?
The issue extends beyond allegations of excessive force. If pellet-firing weapons were indeed deployed, it would represent a significant shift in India's policing of public demonstrations. Until now, pellet guns have been most closely associated with security operations in Jammu and Kashmir, where their use has generated years of legal, political and human rights debate. Their alleged appearance during a civilian protest in Delhi would therefore mark an important departure from established policing practices.
Officially, the Delhi Police have denied using pellet or rubber guns during the protest. However, the denial has stopped short of resolving the controversy.
Senior police officials have acknowledged that the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a specialised anti-riot unit under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), carries pellet guns as part of its standard crowd-control equipment. While the Delhi Police maintain they did not use such weapons, they have also indicated they cannot comment on the operational decisions of the RAF. The CRPF, meanwhile, has declined to issue a formal clarification.
This has created an unusual accountability gap. One agency denies using the weapon but points to another force that possesses it, while the latter has neither confirmed nor denied operational deployment.
The debate has intensified because of medical records cited by injured protesters and journalists.
Several medico-legal reports reportedly describe injuries as "pellet injury marks" or "suspected gunshot injuries." Families of those hospitalised have also claimed that doctors informed them pellets had been surgically removed from victims' bodies, including the face, neck and eye.
Medical records alone do not establish who fired the projectiles or under what circumstances. They also cannot independently determine whether the injuries resulted from pellet guns, rubber ammunition or another form of less-lethal projectile without forensic examination.
Nevertheless, such documentation raises questions that cannot be dismissed solely through official statements. If hospitals have indeed recorded pellet-related injuries, investigators will need to establish the precise source of those injuries.
Modern policing increasingly relies on so-called "less-lethal" weapons intended to disperse crowds while reducing fatalities. These include tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, bean-bag rounds and pellet guns.
The term "less-lethal," however, does not mean harmless.
Pellet cartridges discharge dozens or even hundreds of small metallic projectiles over a wide area. Unlike conventional bullets, they are designed to disperse rather than strike a single target. While this may reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries, it also makes precision difficult. Protesters, journalists, bystanders and even emergency responders can all be exposed once pellets spread through a crowd.
International experience has repeatedly shown that injuries to the eyes, face and upper body are among the most serious consequences of pellet deployment.
The controversy also highlights a structural issue in India's handling of public-order operations involving multiple security agencies.
Major protests in Delhi often involve the Delhi Police, CRPF, RAF and other central forces operating simultaneously under different chains of command. When allegations arise, determining which unit used which weapon becomes considerably more difficult.
Without transparent operational logs, body-camera footage, ballistic examination or publicly available standard operating procedures, responsibility risks becoming diffused across institutions.
Such ambiguity benefits neither the security forces nor the injured.
If the weapons were not used, a transparent investigation could dispel misinformation.
If they were used, authorities must explain the legal basis, authorisation process and circumstances that justified their deployment.
Indian law permits police to use reasonable force to restore public order under specified circumstances. However, the force employed must remain proportionate to the threat posed.
Whether pellet-firing weapons satisfy that principle in dense urban protests remains open to legal scrutiny.
Courts have repeatedly emphasised that policing must balance public order with citizens' constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and free expression. Any escalation in crowd-control methods inevitably attracts closer judicial examination, particularly when serious injuries occur.
Should pellet use in Delhi be confirmed, it is likely to prompt demands for revised crowd-control protocols, greater transparency regarding authorised anti-riot equipment, and independent review of operational decisions.
The controversy is ultimately about more than one day's protest.
It concerns the standards governing the use of force in India's democratic spaces. As public demonstrations become larger, faster and more politically charged, security agencies face increasing pressure to maintain order while avoiding unnecessary harm.
That balance depends not only on operational discipline but also on public confidence.
At present, conflicting official statements, medical reports suggesting pellet injuries and the absence of a comprehensive explanation have created uncertainty rather than clarity.
Only an independent, evidence-based investigation—supported by forensic analysis, medical examination, operational records and eyewitness testimony—can determine what actually happened on Delhi's streets on July 20. Until then, the debate is unlikely to subside, and questions over the limits of crowd-control policing will continue to grow.