J-K High Court refuses to ban pellet guns, says 'so long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable'

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking ban on use of pellet guns in controlling street protests in Kashmir Valley, citing that this was the best decision in light with the prevailing situations on ground. It observed that as long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable.

A bench comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey also declined the plea to prosecute the officers who ordered use of pellet guns or fired them even as it directed the authorities to provide adequate medical treatment to the injured by specialists in or outside the state.

ALSO READ: Home Minister Rajnath approves chilli-filled Pava shells as an alternative to pellet guns

"Having regard to the ground situation prevailing as of now and the fact that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has already constituted a Committee of Experts through its Memorandum dated July 26, 2016 for exploring other alternative to pellet guns.... "Before filing of the report by the Expert Committee and a decision taken at the government level, we are not inclined to prohibit the use of pellet guns in rare and extreme situations," the court said in its order on Wednesday.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Kashmir High Court Bar Association seeking ban on use of pellet guns for crowd control. The court said "it is manifest that so long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable".

ALSO READ: Exploring alternatives to pellet guns - Home Ministry-constituted expert panel submits report

What kind of force has to be used at the relevant point of time or in a given situation or place, has to be decided by the persons in-charge of the place where the attack is happening, it said.

"This court in the writ jurisdiction without any finding rendered by the competent forum/ authority cannot decide as to whether the use of force in particular incident is excessive or not," the court said.