ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
Former TMC Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale, who had filed the RTI, to now appeal before Supreme Court, says response is “baffling”.
The Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF) has refused to disclose information sought under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, regarding the alleged use of pellet ammunition against
protesters during the July 20 demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, stating
that the allegations do not fall under the 'human rights violation exception'
provided under law.
The CRPF's response came, after Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale sought details from the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a specialised wing of the CRPF, regarding the alleged firing of pellet ammunition at protesters during the demonstrations on July 20.
The response assumes significance as security organisations, including the CRPF, are exempt from the RTI Act under Section 24(1), but the exemption does not apply to information pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.
In his RTI application, Gokhale specifically sought a certified copy of the ammunition log/issue-and-expenditure register of RAF contingents deployed in areas including Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street and Connaught Place. He also sought details of the quantity and type of ammunition issued and used, including pellet/plastic-pellet cartridges and tear-smoke shells.
In its first response, the RAF said security organisations were exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1), except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, it said the information sought related to the “operational and security-related matter” of the force and that the allegations made in the application did not come under the human-rights exception.
Gokhale subsequently filed a first appeal, challenging the denial.
The appellate authority, in an order dated August 21, again rejected the plea. It reiterated that the information sought concerned operational and security-related matters and held that the allegations did not attract the proviso relating to human rights violations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Gokhale vehemently criticised the decision, arguing that the alleged use of pellet ammunition against unarmed protesters, resulting in serious injuries, including in the eye, should qualify for scrutiny under the human rights exception. He also alleged that the authorities initially denied that pellets were used, and subsequently declined to provide details concerning the number of people affected.
Calling the CRPF’s position “baffling”, Gokhale said he would submit the RTI correspondence and the CRPF’s replies before the Supreme Court, and seek the court’s view on whether allegations concerning the use of pellet ammunition against protesters can be excluded from the human rights exception under Section 24(1).
"First the Modi-Shah government denied that pellet guns were used. Then, when exposed, they refused to give details of the total number of victims. And now, it is 'baffling' that use of pellet guns (banned under international law) on unarmed youth in India’s capital is not considered to be a human rights violation by Amit Shah’s CRPF," said Gokhle.
When this correspondent tried to get additional reactions from the CRPF, a spokesperson of the force denied to make any further comment.
Former TMC Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale, who had filed the RTI, to now appeal before Supreme Court, says response is “baffling”.
 |
CRPF HQ (ETV Bharat) |
The CRPF's response came, after Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale sought details from the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a specialised wing of the CRPF, regarding the alleged firing of pellet ammunition at protesters during the demonstrations on July 20.
The response assumes significance as security organisations, including the CRPF, are exempt from the RTI Act under Section 24(1), but the exemption does not apply to information pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.
In his RTI application, Gokhale specifically sought a certified copy of the ammunition log/issue-and-expenditure register of RAF contingents deployed in areas including Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street and Connaught Place. He also sought details of the quantity and type of ammunition issued and used, including pellet/plastic-pellet cartridges and tear-smoke shells.
In its first response, the RAF said security organisations were exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1), except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, it said the information sought related to the “operational and security-related matter” of the force and that the allegations made in the application did not come under the human-rights exception.
Gokhale subsequently filed a first appeal, challenging the denial.
The appellate authority, in an order dated August 21, again rejected the plea. It reiterated that the information sought concerned operational and security-related matters and held that the allegations did not attract the proviso relating to human rights violations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Gokhale vehemently criticised the decision, arguing that the alleged use of pellet ammunition against unarmed protesters, resulting in serious injuries, including in the eye, should qualify for scrutiny under the human rights exception. He also alleged that the authorities initially denied that pellets were used, and subsequently declined to provide details concerning the number of people affected.
Calling the CRPF’s position “baffling”, Gokhale said he would submit the RTI correspondence and the CRPF’s replies before the Supreme Court, and seek the court’s view on whether allegations concerning the use of pellet ammunition against protesters can be excluded from the human rights exception under Section 24(1).
"First the Modi-Shah government denied that pellet guns were used. Then, when exposed, they refused to give details of the total number of victims. And now, it is 'baffling' that use of pellet guns (banned under international law) on unarmed youth in India’s capital is not considered to be a human rights violation by Amit Shah’s CRPF," said Gokhle.
When this correspondent tried to get additional reactions from the CRPF, a spokesperson of the force denied to make any further comment.
.JPG)
.JPG)
