Amend plea against metallic pellet guns: SC tells petitionersThe Supreme Court has asked petitioners challenging the use of metallic pellet guns during protests to amend their plea to specifically contest police regulations permitting such weapons in exceptional circumstances. Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the plea was specifically concerned with metallic pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile action guns, which had allegedly been recovered from the bodies of two injured petitioners. Grover submitted that there was a distinction between rubber, plastic and metallic pellets and said the present case concerned metallic pellets allegedly fired at students who were protesting peacefully. The petitioners have sought compensation for persons injured by pellets during the July 20 protest, besides medical treatment for the victims. The petitioners have contended that the use of pellet guns against a peaceful civilian gathering is disproportionate and violates constitutional protections relating to life, liberty and peaceful assembly.