Discuss the legal and ethical issues in the use of 'less-lethal' weapons such as pellet guns for crowd control. Suggest a framework rooted in proportionality.

'Less-lethal' weapons such as pellet guns, tear gas and water cannon are meant to control crowds with a lower risk of death than firearms. Pellet guns were used during the July 2026 NEET paper-leak protests, and a Supreme Court-appointed High Powered Enquiry Committee has now made their use its first priority [1]. This shows that less-lethal does not mean lawful.

Legal issues

• Fundamental rights: Art. 19(1)(b) protects peaceful assembly without arms, and any limits under Art. 19(3) must be reasonable. Force that maims people who pose no threat also violates Art. 21.
• No rulebook for each weapon: police powers to disperse crowds are general. The OHCHR 2020 Guidance treats each weapon separately, setting out when its use is lawful and when it is not [2].
• Accountability gap: the Police Complaints Authorities ordered in Prakash Singh (2006) are weak in many States. So courts have to set up special panels, such as the HPEC, for each incident [1].

Ethical issues

• Indiscriminate harm: one cartridge sprays many pellets. The firer picks a direction, not a person, so bystanders also get hurt.
• Discrimination: the HPEC is also examining targeted harassment of women protesters [1]. Force aimed at one group is wrong even if the weapon itself is legal [3].
• Unequal power: the HPEC is looking at excess "on either side", including harm to police [1]. Still, the State controls the use of force, so it carries the higher duty.
• Trust: injuring students who are protesting an exam failure turns a grievance about governance into alienation.

A framework rooted in proportionality

Legality → Necessity → Proportionality → Non-discrimination → Accountability
(law allows?) (milder option failed?) (force ≈ threat?) (no group targeted?) (each use answered for?)

Fig: Five tests from UNGA Resolution 77/209 for any use of force, including less-lethal weapons [3]

• Weapon-wise SOPs from the MHA, modelled on the OHCHR guidance [2]: dialogue first, then water cannon or tear gas, and pellets only against an imminent threat of serious violence.
• Accounting for every use: each firing is logged and reviewed, since officers must account for each use of force [3]. Body cameras would provide evidence.
• Standing oversight: working Police Complaints Authorities with confidential, protected complaint channels like the HPEC's portal [1].
• Root cause: enforce the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 so that exam leaks stop pushing students onto the streets.

Pellet guns raise legal and ethical problems together: harm that cannot be aimed, discrimination, and weak accountability. A permanent set of rules applying the five tests, enforced by standing oversight bodies, can protect public order without sacrificing the rights in Articles 19 and 21. This is how the "less-lethal" label can become a guarantee that force is used lawfully, in line with SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions).