Police Records Indicate Pellet Gun Was Used During Delhi Student Protest, Report Claims

Yugcharan News / 28-07-2026

New Delhi: Fresh developments have emerged regarding the police action during the July 20 protest march in the national capital, with a report claiming that official records indicate pellet ammunition was used by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) to disperse protesters. The revelation comes days after the Delhi Police publicly denied the use of pellet guns during the demonstration, which was organised by supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student groups demanding accountability over examination-related issues.

According to a report published by The Hindu, a General Diary (GD) entry recorded at the Parliament Street Police Station reportedly states that RAF personnel fired rounds from an anti-riot weapon containing plastic pellets on the instructions of a senior Delhi Police officer. The reported document has intensified the debate over the methods used during crowd control operations and has triggered fresh political and public reactions.

The alleged use of pellet ammunition has become a major point of discussion, particularly because it is being described as one of the first reported instances of such equipment being deployed against unarmed protesters in the national capital.

General Diary Entry Cites Crowd-Control Measures

According to the report, the General Diary entry was registered by the Rapid Action Force shortly after the protest operation concluded. The entry reportedly states that the force acted on the directions of a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP)-rank officer while attempting to control the crowd during the demonstration.

The document allegedly records that RAF personnel discharged multiple types of crowd-control equipment, including non-electrical shells, electrical shells, tear smoke grenades, and two rounds of ballistic cartridges containing plastic pellets fired through an anti-riot gun.

If verified through official investigation, the diary entry could become an important piece of evidence in understanding the sequence of events that unfolded during the protest.

Contradiction With Earlier Police Statement

The reported diary entry has drawn attention because it appears to differ from the earlier public position taken by the Delhi Police.

Following the July 20 demonstrations, Delhi Police had stated that pellet guns were not used during the operation. Officials maintained that standard crowd-control measures had been employed to manage the situation and restore public order.

The emergence of the reported General Diary entry has therefore raised questions regarding the operational decisions taken during the protest and whether additional clarification may be required from the authorities.

As of now, no fresh official statement addressing the reported document has been released by Delhi Police.

Injuries Reported During the Demonstration

During the protests, several participants reportedly sustained injuries while clashes occurred between demonstrators and security personnel.

Media reports indicated that at least four individuals were allegedly struck by pellets, with some requiring medical treatment. Earlier reports also stated that two injured persons underwent medical procedures at government hospitals after sustaining pellet-related injuries.

The exact circumstances surrounding each injury continue to be a matter of public discussion, and authorities have not released a detailed official account regarding every reported case.

Protest Linked to Examination Reform Demands

The July 20 demonstration formed part of a larger nationwide protest movement led primarily by students and youth organisations.

Participants were demanding stronger action against examination paper leaks, greater transparency in recruitment and public examinations, and accountability from those responsible for alleged irregularities affecting competitive examinations.

Large numbers of demonstrators gathered in New Delhi and attempted to march toward Parliament, leading to significant security deployments in and around the national capital.

Authorities imposed restrictions and deployed multiple police units, including specialised crowd-control personnel, to maintain law and order during the march.

Political Reactions Continue

The developments have continued to generate political reactions across party lines.

Opposition leaders have repeatedly demanded explanations regarding the police action during the demonstrations and have called for discussions on the matter in Parliament. Several leaders have questioned the methods used to disperse protesters and sought greater transparency regarding operational decisions.

On the other hand, government representatives have maintained that law enforcement agencies acted in accordance with their responsibility to maintain public order and ensure public safety during large gatherings.

The issue has also featured prominently during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, where repeated disruptions have occurred over demands for discussions related to the protests.

Debate Over Crowd-Control Practices

The reported use of pellet ammunition has renewed wider discussions about the methods employed by security agencies during public demonstrations.

Crowd-control equipment such as tear smoke, water cannons, smoke shells, and non-lethal projectiles are generally intended to disperse violent gatherings while minimising the risk of serious injury. However, human rights organisations and legal experts have often emphasised that any use of force must remain proportionate, lawful, and subject to established operational guidelines.

Experts note that every crowd-control situation is assessed based on prevailing security conditions, perceived threats, and the need to protect both civilians and law enforcement personnel.

Calls for Greater Transparency

The reported General Diary entry has prompted renewed calls from legal experts, civil society groups, and political leaders for greater transparency regarding operational decisions made during public protests.

Observers believe that official clarification regarding the reported document would help address questions surrounding the sequence of events and the type of force used during the July 20 operation.

Some legal experts have also pointed out that internal records maintained during security operations can play an important role in judicial or administrative reviews if any investigation is initiated.

Matter May See Further Examination

As public attention remains focused on the incident, further developments may depend on official responses, administrative reviews, or judicial proceedings, if any are initiated.

The reported diary entry has added a new dimension to the ongoing discussion surrounding the handling of the July 20 protests, particularly as Parliament continues debating issues related to examination reforms and student demonstrations.

At present, the information regarding the use of pellet ammunition is based on the reported General Diary entry accessed by media reports. Any final determination regarding the circumstances of the protest, the actions of security personnel, or the legality of operational decisions would depend on official findings and any subsequent legal or administrative proceedings.

The incident continues to remain under public scrutiny, with many stakeholders awaiting further clarification from the concerned authorities regarding the reported use of crowd-control equipment during one of the country's most closely watched student protests.