A new investigation by Amnesty International claims that Indian security forces used excessive and potentially lethal force against students during recent protests in New Delhi.
A recent investigation duct of Indian security forces during youth-led demonstrations in New Delhi. The report focuses on events from July 20, when thousands of protesters gathered near Parliament Street to demand accountability following a series of high-profile examination scandals. These scandals, involving the leakage of national exam papers and systemic administrative irregularities, sparked a wave of unrest led ta Party (CJP).
According to the Amnesty report, law enforcement agencies employed a range of weapons that the organization argues violate both international standards and domestic policing guidelines. These tactics included the deployment of pellet-firing shotguns, tear gas grenades, electric shock batons, and the use of physical force via traditional lathis. The findings suggest that these measures were utilized in a manner that contradicts the official narrative presented were measured and proportionate to the situation.
The core of the Amnesty investigation relies on the Evidence Lab’s analysis of photographic and video documentation, alongside firsthand witness accounts. Researchers verified instances where paramilitary forces deployed shotguns into crowds at high-traffic intersections. These birdshot munitions, which are inherently inaccurate due to the wide dispersion of metal pellets, pose significant risks to both targeted individuals and bystanders. Medical records from several injured protesters confirmed the presence of pellet wounds, with some victims requiring long-term treatment for severe physical trauma.
One particularly harrowing account involved a 19-year-old student who suffered permanent vision loss in one eye after being struck in his body, including in his chest and face. Despite these documented injuries, the Delhi Police have publicly characterized reports of pellet use as misinformation. In official statements, the police warned that legal action would be taken against those spreading what they deemed to be false claims, even as internal inquiries reportedly identified the discharge of multiple rounds containing metal pellets during the crackdown.
The Amnesty report further criticizes the use of tear gas grenades, noting that those deployed often released excessive explosive energy. Witnesses observed that these devices were frequently launched directly at protesters rather than at an angled trajectory as recommended ocedure significantly increases the danger to civilians in public assemblies. Furthermore, the report highlights the presence of individuals in civilian clothing who were seen beating protesters while uniformed officers stood
The use of lathis—heavy batons common in Indian law enforcement—has also drawn condemnation. International human rights bodies have previously categorized these tools as inherently cruel, arguing that they deliver excessive kinetic force that exceeds the capacity for safe crowd management. The report suggests that the combination of these varied tactical failures, along with the imposition of communication blackouts and physical barricades, reflects a state-sanctioned approach that prioritizes suppression over the protection of the right to peaceful assembly.
The crackdown has ignited a fierce political debate within the Indian Parliament. Opposition leaders have seized upon the Amnesty findings to demand accountability from top government officials, specifically questioning the oversight of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The political pressure reached a boiling point when opposition figures staged sit-ins to force the registration of formal complaints regarding police brutality. These actions underscore the deep-seated tensions between the government and the youth-led protest movements that continue to advocate for transparency in the nation's educational and administrative systems.
While the government continues to deny accusations of excessive force, the persistence of the protest movement and the emergence of independent investigative evidence suggest that the debate over police conduct is far from resolved. Victims of the July 20 crackdown are now utilizing digital platforms to document their injuries and gather evidence for potential legal proceedings. As the situation develops, the focus remains on whether the state will initiate an impartial inquiry into the conduct of its security forces or continue to rely on the current policy of denial and suppression.