Saurav Das’ single-word reaction to Supreme Court’s decision on pellet guns sparks outrage, ‘Face the consequence’

Saurav Das posted a single-word response to the Supreme Court’s directive on the use of pellet guns. The CJP spokesperson’s response has garnered nearly 2.4 lakh views.

The Supreme Court has ruled that pellet guns cannot be banned outright. It says existing advisory permits their use in exceptional circumstances. Security agencies retain authority specifically for crowd control situations. However, allegations of specific misuse can be examined individually.

The case stems from a plea concerning recent student protests. Protesters gathered in Delhi against the NEET paper leak. The court has asked the Centre to preserve RAF ammunition logs. This covers deployment at Jantar Mantar during the protests.

“Disgusting,” Saurav Das wrote while sharing the SC judgment. His response has sparked outrage.

“First, disrespect the union government, then disrespect the apex court, then disrespect law, authority and constitution. And, it goes on,” wrote one user.

“You are living in a country, holding a copy of the Constitution with the promise to uphold it, and now you are disgusting SC and CJI (as constitutional authorities) just because it doesn’t suit you,” wrote another user.

Another user commented, “The entire march was disgusting. You guys thought you would walk free, as it happened in Nepal and Bangladesh? Now, face the consequence. There should be accountability for every action.”

There are others who supported Das’ remark, though.

“Dealing with unarmed students in a peaceful protest is an exceptional situation. Wonder what facing real terrorists counts as!” commented one of them.

According to the petition to the SC, the RAF used tear gas and lathi-charges. They then fired pump-action guns loaded with metallic pellets. This reportedly occurred near Connaught Place during the protest.

Petitioners claim no prior warning was issued beforehand. Several protesters allegedly suffered serious injuries, including eye damage.

The plea argued that pellet guns cause imprecise, widespread injury risks. It contended that such weapons fail key constitutional tests.

What SC bench said

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard the matter. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also sat alongside him. According to the bench, police are empowered under the BPRD advisory.

This permits the use of a pellet gun only in exceptional situations. Justice Bagchi called the appeal to ban pellet guns “vague”. He said petitioners must challenge underlying police regulations directly.

“Prayers are not to use pellet guns. In exceptional cases, police regulations permit the use of pellet guns. If you are interested in phasing out pellet guns, you will have to challenge that very provision as ultra vires to Article 21 (right to life),” PTI quoted Justice Bagchi as saying.

The bench directed the Delhi government to provide proper medical treatment. This applies to victims Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Both reportedly suffered pellet injuries during the 20 July protest. Former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad filed the original petition. He sought a complete nationwide ban on metallic pellets.

The court issued notice to the Centre and the RAF’s Inspector General. Senior advocate Vrinda Grover represented the petitioners in court. She argued regulations weren’t easily accessible in the public domain. She urged the Centre to place these on record.

Grover clarified that she wasn’t entirely opposed to pellet guns. She specifically objected to the use of metallic pellets. According to her, no standing order permits their use in Delhi.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court of full cooperation. He said the government would assist, however necessary.

Grover noted an earlier order preserved various forms of footage. This included CCTV, drone and body camera recordings. However, it hasn’t specifically covered RAF ammunition logs.

The bench acknowledged that protests can sometimes turn violent unexpectedly. Anti-social elements may infiltrate otherwise peaceful demonstrations, it said.

Consequently, graded responses by law enforcement might become necessary. Forces sometimes must make on-the-spot operational decisions accordingly.