The Rapid Action Force used an Anti-Riot Gun, tear smoke shells and grenades while dispersing protesters near Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20, an internal deployment record has indicated, intensifying scrutiny of the security response to the student-led march.
The record states that RAF personnel fired two Anti-Riot Gun rounds loaded with ballistic cartridges containing plastic pellets. The unit also discharged 55 non-electric tear smoke shells, 15 electric shells and five tear smoke grenades during the operation.
The equipment was used on the directions of a Deputy Commissioner of Police-rank officer working with the RAF contingent at Zone 1 of Jantar Mantar, the document indicates. A deputy commandant later communicated the details to the duty officer, and the expenditure of ammunition was entered into the force’s official database.
The disclosure adds a significant detail to the dispute over whether pellet-type ammunition was used against demonstrators. Delhi Police had said it did not possess pellet guns and described claims about their deployment as misleading. The Anti-Riot Gun, however, is operated by central security personnel and is classified as a less-lethal crowd-control weapon.
Although technically different from the pump-action weapons commonly described as pellet guns, the Anti-Riot Gun fires plastic projectiles designed to fragment after discharge. Each pellet can break into four pieces, increasing the area covered by a single round. The weapon was developed from a modified.303 rifle and was previously known as a missile gun.
The RAF, a specialised wing of the Central Reserve Police Force, has begun an internal verification of the conduct of personnel deployed during the protest. The examination covers the sequence of events, weapons used, orders issued by officers and allegations that force was excessive or disproportionate.
A formal court of inquiry had not initially been ordered. Such proceedings could follow if the verification identifies violations of operational guidelines or sufficient grounds for disciplinary investigation.
At least two protesters were reported to have suffered injuries consistent with pellet or projectile impact. Images showing puncture wounds and marks on demonstrators circulated widely after the clashes, prompting demands for an independent investigation. The precise weapon responsible for each injury has yet to be officially established.
The National Human Rights Commission has separately taken suo motu cognisance of allegations of excessive force. It has asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to submit a detailed report within two weeks and ordered the preservation of CCTV footage and other video recordings.
The commission has sought information on the use of batons, tear gas and pellets, the number and nature of injuries, medical assistance provided to demonstrators and the standard operating procedures followed by security personnel. It has also requested the justification for prohibitory orders imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The rights body said state action during demonstrations must remain proportionate, even when authorities are required to protect public order. It noted that peaceful protest is constitutionally protected, subject to reasonable restrictions.
The confrontation occurred during the “Sansad Chalo” mobilisation organised by the Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, an online collective that developed into a youth-led protest movement. Demonstrators attempted to march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament without police permission.
The protest campaign had demanded accountability over examination paper leaks, recruitment delays and alleged failures in the management of competitive tests. Its principal demand was the resignation of then education minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
Tens of thousands of people, many of them students and job aspirants, gathered in central Delhi on July 20. Police barricades were breached at several points as sections of the crowd moved towards Parliament. Security personnel used batons and tear smoke to push demonstrators back, while some officers were surrounded and attacked.
Video recordings also showed protesters throwing objects, damaging barricades and confronting personnel. Other footage appeared to show officers striking people who were retreating, tripping a running demonstrator and using electrical crowd-control equipment.
The RAF review is examining both sets of allegations. Its operational rules permit less-lethal weapons only through a graded response, particularly where personnel or members of the public face a serious threat. Weapons firing pellets or projectiles are generally expected to be used below the waist and with safeguards intended to limit injury.
