Introduction & Current Context
The debate over “less-lethal” weapons employed by law enforcement agencies has reached a critical juncture in India. Recently, a coalition of prominent civil society organizations, including the Progressive Medicos and Scientific Forum (PMSF) and various constituents under the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD), issued a categorical demand for a complete ban on the use of pellet guns and electric shock batons by all police forces in the country. This demand follows alleged instances of excessive force used against protesters during a march to Parliament on July 20, where the deployment of such crowd-control measures purportedly resulted in severe injuries, leading to long-term disabilities among the protesters.
The call for a ban is rooted in the argument that these weapons do not qualify as “less-lethal” but rather “non-discriminatory” and highly dangerous. The advocacy groups have not only called for a cessation of their use but have also demanded an independent judicial inquiry to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the July 20 incidents. This development highlights a recurring friction point in Indian democracy: the delicate balance between the state’s duty to maintain public order and its obligation to uphold the fundamental human rights of its citizens.
Syllabus Relevance
For aspirants preparing for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and State Public Service Commissions (like MPSC), this issue is multi-dimensional and spans several areas of the syllabus:
- GS Paper II (Polity & Governance): Rights of the Disabled; Role of civil society organizations in democracy; Constitutional provisions regarding the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21); Police reforms and internal security.
- GS Paper III (Internal Security): Challenges of policing in a democracy; Crowd control measures and standard operating procedures (SOPs); Human rights considerations in internal security management.
Key Highlights, Arguments, and Structural Issues
The primary argument forwarded by the NPRD and PMSF is based on the indiscriminate nature of the weapons in question. The key contentions are as follows:
- Indiscriminate Impact: Unlike precision-based control measures, pellet guns function by spraying a large number of metal pellets simultaneously. They are inherently incapable of being “aimed” to avoid vital organs or to target only the instigators of violence, thus violating the principle of proportionality in the use of force.
- Long-term Disability and Trauma: The use of these weapons has historically resulted in permanent injuries, including partial or total blindness, internal organ damage, and severe psychological trauma. The groups emphasize that the use of such force often results in “disability by design” or neglect, making it a matter of grave concern for disability rights activists.
- Legal and Ethical Lacunae: The current regulatory framework governing crowd control is often accused of being outdated and lacking specific guidelines on the use of electric shock batons and pellet-based munitions. There is a structural lack of accountability for officers who misuse these weapons.
- Judicial Inquiry: The demand for a judicial probe reflects a lack of faith in departmental inquiries, which are often perceived as mechanisms to shield the perpetrators of state-sponsored violence rather than ensuring justice for victims.
Detailed Analysis: Legal and Constitutional Aspects
The use of such weapons must be analyzed through the lens of both domestic law and international human rights standards.
Constitutional Provisions
Under the Indian Constitution, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed by Article 21 is sacrosanct. While the state has the authority to maintain order, the Supreme Court has consistently held in various judgments that the force used by the police must be “reasonable” and “proportional.” The deployment of indiscriminate weaponry that results in permanent maiming of individuals, especially when the protest might have been peaceful or non-violent, is often seen as a violation of the “due process” clause and the spirit of the Right to Life.
International Standards and the UN Basic Principles
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials state that police should apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. When the use of force is unavoidable, it must be proportional to the seriousness of the offense. Critics argue that the use of pellet guns and electric shock batons frequently ignores these principles of necessity and proportionality. Furthermore, India is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which mandates the state to protect citizens from any form of violence that could lead to impairment.
Police Reforms (The Prakash Singh Case Context)
The ongoing struggle for police reform, as directed by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case, underscores the need for professionalizing the police force. Part of this professionalization involves adopting sophisticated, less-harmful crowd control technology, which India’s police forces currently lack, often relying on legacy, high-impact weaponry.
Broader Socio-Economic Connection
While often viewed as a security issue, the impact of these weapons has a profound socio-economic dimension, particularly relating to Divyangjan (persons with disabilities). When citizens are permanently disabled by state action, it creates an immediate economic burden on the individual and their family, often pushing them into poverty. This necessitates an intersectional approach where internal security policies are evaluated not just for their efficiency in stopping a riot, but for their long-term economic impact on the welfare of the citizens they are meant to protect.
Practice Prelims MCQ
Question: With reference to the use of force by police in India, consider the following statements:
- The principle of “proportionality” implies that the force used by law enforcement must be commensurate with the threat posed.
- The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms are legally binding on all police forces worldwide without exception.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A) 1 only
B) 2 only
C) Both 1 and 2
D) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A. Explanation: Statement 1 is correct; the principle of proportionality is a standard doctrine in both domestic and international law regarding the use of force. Statement 2 is incorrect; while the UN Basic Principles provide globally accepted standards, they are guidelines intended to assist member states and are not themselves “legally binding” in a direct statutory sense, although they heavily influence judicial interpretation and policy formulation.
Practice Mains Descriptive Question
Question: “The debate over the use of so-called ‘less-lethal’ weapons by the police is not merely a question of security, but a fundamental test of the state’s commitment to human rights.” Critically analyze this statement in the context of recent demands for a ban on pellet guns and electric shock batons.
Model Answer Points:
- Introduction: Define the tension between maintaining public order (a state necessity) and the protection of civil liberties. Introduce the recent demands by the NPRD/PMSF.
- Body Paragraph 1: Discuss the nature of the weapons. Argue that “less-lethal” is a misnomer when these weapons frequently cause permanent injury, citing the indiscriminate nature of pellet guns.
- Body Paragraph 2: Incorporate constitutional and legal perspectives (Article 21, the requirement of proportionality, and the need for accountability).
- Body Paragraph 3: Address the structural issues: lack of modern, non-invasive crowd control technology, inadequate training, and the necessity for judicial oversight in cases of alleged abuse.
- Conclusion: Emphasize the need for “Police Reforms” that include the adoption of humane technologies and strict adherence to international standards. Suggest that a democratic state must prioritize the safety of its citizens, ensuring that policing does not become a cause of the very disorder it seeks to prevent.
This study note is part of the daily current affairs initiative by IAS EasyWay. Keep visiting IAS EasyWay daily for more such comprehensive current affairs updates and notes.