Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses PIL Prohibiting Use Of Pellet Guns

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

A two-judge bench comprising of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir (Srinagar bench) in the case of J&K High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Ors. dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanded an order prohibiting use of pellet guns (12-Bore Pellet Gun or of any other Bore and Cartridges containing pellets) as a means of crowd control against any group of people, including protestors in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 11th March 2020. This was to restrict the security forces from using pelting guns to control the crowd and also to prosecute Security Force officers and personnel, who had used Pellet Guns on protestors and non-protestors and also to compensate the injured persons. The PIL was filed by the J&K High Court Bar Association through its Executive Member, Mr Muhammad Ashraf Bhat, way back in July 2016.

When this petition first came up for consideration on 02.08.2016, the learned Advocate General and the learned ASGI took notices in the open Court. After which respondent filed their respective response, the Division Bench of this court, of which Justice Magrey was member, passed on 21.9.2016.

Arguments for Prohibiting Use Of Pellet Guns

The J&K Bar Association asked the high court to prohibit the use of 12-bore pellet guns for crowd-control in J&K and order the prosecution of security personnel who had used the weapons on protesters and non-protesters.

The lawyer’s body was also seeking compensation to all those persons whose names mentioned in the petition as well as those whose particulars will come to the notice of the court during the hearing of the matter

Arguments Defending the Prohibition

In light of the response to the Petitioners filed, the learned counsel form respondent side stated “It is not in dispute that from 08.07.2016 many parts of the valley are facing law and order problems for one reason or the other. Almost every day, on the guise of protests, the Security Personnel, their Camps and Police Stations are targeted by unruly crowds.”

The State Government has passed orders u/s 144 Cr. PC restricting the movement of public and vehicles. The Educational Institutions are closed for about ten weeks which is affecting the future of students. There is shut down due to various reasons and the situation has not improved as on date. It is true that so many persons were injured due to the use of Pellet Guns or by use of force, some of them seriously. It is also true that because of the use of Pellet Guns even though more protests become violent the loss of life is less, as stated in the reply filed by respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. The petitioner is claiming that there is a Human Rights violation. If the protest is not peaceful and the WP (C) (PIL) no. 14/2016 Security persons are attacked by a huge and violent mob they have to necessarily use force as their self-defence and for protecting public property. For dispersal of mob and maintenance of law and order detailed instructions are issued to the law enforcing agencies in the name of Standard Operation Procedure (SOP). The same was issued in terms of Section 127 to 132 Cr. P. C. as well as under Section 24, 32 and 33 of the J&K Police Act.

They also stated that the health authorities is of the view that since medical treatment has duly been extended to all the injured persons, some of whom have been referred to other hospitals in the country as well and special doctors have also been called from outside the State for treatment and conduct of surgeries of some other patients, nothing more needs to be done as regards to these prayers.

Court’s decision

Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Ali Mohammad Magrey said:

“Almost every day, in the guise of protests, the security personnel, their camps and police stations were targeted by unruly crowds. If the protest is not peaceful and the security persons are attacked by huge and violent mobs, they have to necessarily use force in their self-defence and for protecting public property.”

The court held that, so far as the first and the second prayers made in the petition are concerned, the Court has already recorded a finding in its order dated 21.09.2016, particularly in paras 22 to 27 thereof and in regard with the fourth and the fifth prayers made in the petition, the concerned Hospital authorities have filed their respective responses to the petition, detailing out the number and the particulars of the injured persons who had reported at their respective Hospitals during the period in question, the nature of injuries received by them, the treatment provided to them and the procedures, wherever necessary, conducted on them.

Jammu & Kashmir High CourtThis Court in this PIL, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which gives the Power of High Courts to issue certain writs, cannot grant relief to the satisfaction of every such individual allegedly injured in police action, especially so when there is a finding recorded by the Court in its order dated 21.09.2016 that almost every day, in the guise of protests, the security personnel, their camps and Police Stations were targeted by unruly crowds, and that, if the protest is not peaceful and the security persons are attacked by huge and violent mobs, they have to necessarily use force in their self-defence and for protecting public property. The court further held that since medical treatment has duly been extended to all the injured persons, some of whom have been referred to other Hospitals in the country as well, and Special Doctors have also been called from outside the State for treatment and conduct surgeries of some other patients, nothing more needs to be done as regards prayers made in the petition. It further held that so far as the constitutional tort is concerned, the State has fulfilled its obligation, inasmuch as they have made ex-gratia payments to most of the injured persons as mentioned above, and with respect to the remaining it is categorically stated that their cases shall be decided in tune with the Government policy in that behalf in due course of time.

The Court further added that

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

Thus the petition was dismissed accordingly.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -