How excessive police force turns peaceful marches into medical crises
In India, information on the crowd control devices that security personnel possess and use is not easily available. Regular audits are necessary to ensure these devices meet quality standards and tests should be conducted in a manner that reveals the weapons’ full impact before they are deployed, per the UN guidance.
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
Recent protests in Delhi have brought the spotlight onto the use of 'less-lethal' crowd control measures by police, including tear gas, lathis, and pellet guns. Medical professionals and human rights groups report severe injuries among protesters, raising concerns about excessive force, inadequate training, and the lack of regulatory transparency regarding the composition and deployment of these devices in India. This highlights a critical tension between the state's duty to maintain public order and the citizen's fundamental right to peaceful assembly.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The right to assemble peacefully and without arms is a fundamental right guaranteed under of the . However, this right is not absolute and is subject to 'reasonable restrictions' in the interest of public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India, as per . The use of force by police to disperse an unlawful assembly is governed by the , specifically Sections 129 to 132 (now part of the ). The law dictates a graded response, mandating that the intensity of force should only escalate if the crowd refuses to disperse or becomes violent, and only after warnings from an executive magistrate. The article highlights a systemic failure where this graded approach is often bypassed, leading to excessive force. From a UPSC perspective, this raises questions about the balance between state power and individual liberties, and the necessity of stricter statutory guidelines and oversight mechanisms to prevent arbitrary use of 'less-lethal' weapons.
Internal Security
Crowd control is a crucial aspect of internal security management. Police forces utilize 'less-lethal' weapons—such as tear gas (CS gas), pellet guns, and batons—to disperse rioters while minimizing fatalities. However, the term 'less-lethal' is often misleading, as misuse or indiscriminate firing can cause permanent disabilities or death, as seen in the use of pellet guns in Jammu & Kashmir and during various national protests. The , to which India is a signatory, bans tear gas in warfare but permits its use for domestic riot control. The article underscores critical operational gaps: poor training leading to indiscriminate targeting (e.g., hitting the head or torso instead of extremities as mandated by police manuals like the ), and the lack of transparency regarding the chemical composition of irritants like PAVA (synthetic pepper spray). The emphasizes proportionality and necessity, principles often violated in practice. For UPSC, candidates must analyze the need for standard operating procedures (SOPs), modernization of riot gear to genuinely non-lethal alternatives, and mandatory human rights training for police personnel.
Ethics
The deployment of force against citizens involves profound ethical considerations for law enforcement. The core ethical principle here is proportionality—the force used must be commensurate with the threat posed. When police officers use lathis studded with nails or fire kinetic projectiles at close range, they violate the principle of minimum necessary force and compromise their duty to protect life. This reflects a deficit in emotional intelligence and crisis management skills among personnel under stress. Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding the types of weapons used and the absence of accountability for injuries sustained by peaceful protesters highlight systemic issues in public service ethics and institutional integrity. The state has an ethical obligation to ensure that its agents do not inflict gratuitous harm. From an ethics case study perspective (GS Paper 4), candidates should be prepared to analyze situations where they, as a District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police, must balance the immediate need to restore order with the ethical imperative to minimize harm, prioritize de-escalation, and ensure subsequent medical care and investigation of injuries.