The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has launched an internal professional review into allegations that personnel from its Rapid Action Force (RAF) fired pellet rounds during the July 20 ‘Sansad Chalo’ march in New Delhi, following weeks of denials by Delhi Police and government authorities.
According to CRPF sources, an RAF personnel fired pellet rounds during clashes in Connaught Place, with some pellets reportedly ricocheting off the ground and injuring protesters. The review, described as part of the force’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) after major operations, will examine whether the use of force complied with operational guidelines and whether established protocols were followed.
The development comes amid mounting scrutiny after injured protesters came forward with medical records and eyewitness accounts alleging pellet injuries, while Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi publicly presented one such victim as evidence that pellet guns had been used.
At the same time, CRPF sources have maintained that more than 47 RAF personnel were injured during the violence, with several suffering serious injuries, underscoring the intensity of the confrontation. The findings of the review are expected to determine whether pellet rounds were officially deployed, whether procedures were followed and whether any corrective action is warranted.
Victims, Denials And Review
The controversy stems from the July 20 ‘Sansad Chalo’ march, organised by students and supporters demanding accountability over the alleged NEET paper leak and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The march began at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar before protesters attempted to move towards Parliament, where they were stopped by Delhi Police and the RAF. As tensions escalated in and around Connaught Place, authorities used barricades, tear gas and lathi-charge to disperse the crowd. It was during this confrontation that allegations first emerged that pellet guns had also been used against protesters.
Initially, Delhi Police categorically denied these claims, describing reports of pellet gun use as “false”, “misleading” and “fake news”. Police also stated that pellet guns do not form part of the Delhi Police’s standard arsenal.
However, attention shifted towards the RAF, whose specialised riot-control equipment includes pellet-firing weapons under specific operational circumstances. According to CRPF sources, the ongoing review will examine whether one RAF personnel fired pellet rounds, whether the circumstances justified their use and whether the deployment complied with prescribed crowd-control protocols.
Officials have clarified that the exercise is a professional post-operation assessment routinely conducted after major deployments and is not, at this stage, a disciplinary inquiry.
The allegations have gained traction following multiple accounts from injured protesters. At least four cases of suspected pellet injuries have been reported publicly. One of the most widely discussed victims, Sahil Lohchab, suffered multiple injuries, including severe damage to one eye. Appearing alongside Rahul Gandhi during a media interaction, Lohchab’s injuries were cited by the Congress leader as evidence contradicting official denials.
“The government has been denying that pellets were fired. But here is the proof,” Rahul Gandhi said while pointing to visible marks on the student’s body. He further alleged that the student had been peacefully carrying the national flag when he was struck and accused the government of “firing guns at the future of India”.
Another injured protester told India Today Digital that he noticed a police personnel aiming a gun before attempting to run. He said he initially felt only an impact before experiencing what he described as “hot metal piercing” his back, later discovering bleeding wounds. Medical records reviewed by media organisations have reportedly documented injuries consistent with pellets, although the official investigation is yet to establish responsibility.
CRPF officials have, however, emphasised that the clashes were not one-sided. According to sources within the force, more than 47 RAF personnel were injured during the violence, with several sustaining serious injuries allegedly due to stone-pelting and aggressive resistance by sections of the crowd.
The review is therefore expected to examine not only the alleged firing of pellet rounds but also the broader operational environment, including the sequence of events, decision-making during the confrontation and whether force escalated in accordance with established Standard Operating Procedures.
Why The Allegations Matter
The allegations have reignited a long-standing debate over the use of pellet guns in crowd-control operations in India. Pellet guns are classified as less-lethal weapons rather than conventional firearms, but they remain deeply controversial because each cartridge disperses dozens of small metallic pellets over a wide area, making injuries difficult to predict or control.
Medical experts have repeatedly warned that pellets can cause deep tissue injuries, permanent scarring and irreversible eye damage, particularly when fired at close range. Victims often require surgery to remove embedded pellets, while severe ocular injuries may result in lifelong vision impairment.
The issue carries additional significance because of the history surrounding pellet guns in India. Their use during protests in Jammu and Kashmir after 2016 drew widespread criticism from civil society groups, medical professionals and human rights organisations after hundreds of people, including minors, sustained eye injuries.
Following legal challenges, the Supreme Court examined the issue, after which the Centre informed the court that pellet guns would be treated as a measure of last resort. Government guidelines emphasise that security personnel should first exhaust alternatives such as verbal warnings, persuasion, barricading, tear gas, water cannons and other non-lethal crowd-control methods before considering pellet ammunition.
Whether those principles were adhered to during the July 20 operation is likely to be one of the central questions addressed by the CRPF’s ongoing review.
Politically, the issue has escalated beyond the protest site. Rahul Gandhi has written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah demanding accountability and asking who authorised the alleged use of pellet guns, whether protocols were followed and why students were allegedly subjected to such force during what the Opposition describes as a peaceful protest.
Meanwhile, government agencies have maintained that the allegations require careful verification and have not officially confirmed the use of pellet rounds. The forthcoming CRPF report is therefore expected to play a significant role in clarifying the facts and shaping future discussions on policing standards during public demonstrations.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Public protests are a vital part of a democratic society, just as maintaining law and order is an essential responsibility of the state. When these two imperatives collide, transparency, accountability and restraint become indispensable.
Allegations involving the use of pellet guns particularly against young protesters deserve a thorough, impartial and evidence-based investigation that considers the experiences of injured demonstrators as well as the risks and injuries faced by security personnel. Equally important is ensuring that official communication remains accurate, timely and transparent so that public trust is not eroded by conflicting narratives.
Also read: 3 Killed, 7 Injured After Scorpio Crosses Divider on Delhi-Lucknow Highway in Hapur
