NEW DELHI: All standard operating procedures (SOPs) and anti-riot drills were followed during the July 20 police action against anti-NEET leak protesters, which included the authorised use of “non-lethal” means like pellet gun, a CRPF post-event analysis has said.CRPF sources told TOI that upon carefully examining the response of its anti-riot unit, Rapid Action Force, it is evident that force gradient was followed, with pump action gun being used only after lower-grade measures like public announcements for crowd dispersal, tear gas and lathicharge failed to effectively control the mob. Around 3-5 protesters were injured by the metal pellets. Also, 47 RAF personnel were injured, with six sustaining head injuries.When contacted, CRPF DG G P Singh said the matter was “sub judice” and any findings or view of the force on RAF action would be placed before Supreme Court. RAF sources said the use of force on July 20 was authorised by Delhi Police, in line with the SOPs and the law.
‘Police, RAF attacked with stones, iron rails’
Sources claimed the mob had some motivated elements attacking personnel of Delhi Police and RAF with stones and, in some cases, even iron rails.As per BNSS, an executive magistrate may order use of civil force to disperse an unlawful assembly after carefully assessing the situation. In Delhi, this magisterial authority is vested with the Delhi Police commissioner, and delegated to junior commissioners till the level of the assistant commissioner of police. “RAF deployed at protest sites uses anti-riot gear only with authorisation; which in this case came from the DCP/ACP in charge of the protest site. Such authorisation is in writing and as per a format used at all sites of unlawful assembly; no order is given verbally,” said an officer.CRPF sources said pump action guns are an approved, “non-lethal” measure to control unlawful assemblies. “Their use, with the force gradient being followed and under authorisation by the competent officer, is as per the SOP,” said an officer.J&K high court had, in its 2016 ruling on a PIL challenging pellet use, said: “So long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable. What kind of force has to be used at the relevant point of time or in a given situation has to be decided by the persons in charge of the place where the attack is happening. This court in writ jurisdiction, without any finding rendered by the competent forum/authority cannot decide whether the use of force in a particular incident is excessive or not.”Supreme Court later dismissed the special leave petition against this order, stating, “The use of pellet guns, if at all done by any agency, has not only not been barred, but validated through these orders.”
