Amnesty International Exposes “State-Sanctioned Violence” Against Protesters in Delhi; No Accountability One Month Later

NEW DELHI – One month after the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led “Chalo Sansad” march was met with a brutal crackdown, Amnesty International has released a damning digital investigation confirming that Indian security forces utilized lethal and unlawful force against peaceful demonstrators. Despite mounting video evidence and witness testimony, not a single officer has been held accountable for the violence that occurred between July 20 and July 24.

The investigation, conducted by Amnesty’s Evidence Lab, contradicts official claims by the Delhi Police, who have maintained that their handling of the protests was “professional.” Publicly dismissing allegations of excessive force as “fake news,” the Delhi Police have denied the deployment of pellet-firing shotguns, a claim the new report systematically dismantles.

A Pattern of Excessive Force

The report details the deployment of a dangerous arsenal against civilians, including pellet-firing shotguns, tear gas, batons (lathis), and electric shock devices. Amnesty’s researchers verified 17 videos from central Delhi—covering Jantar Mantar, Sansad Marg, and Connaught Place—and two from Siwan, Bihar, confirming the involvement of the Delhi Police, the Rapid Action Force (RAF), and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).

Among the most alarming findings is the use of birdshot—small metal pellets fired from shotguns—which are not designed for law enforcement and carry a high risk of permanent injury or death. One protester, who spoke to Amnesty under condition of anonymity, described being shot while fleeing: “I had roughly 25-30 wounds… Thankfully, my bones were saved, but my body has been scarred badly.”

Medical evidence and internal inquiries appear to support these accounts. An internal CRPF probe reportedly confirmed that RAF personnel fired at least seven rounds of metal pellets, and official Right to Information (RTI) responses indicate that at least ten people sustained pellet injuries.

Weaponizing “Crowd Control”

The investigation also highlights the misuse of other tools:

• Lathis and Electric Shocks: Amnesty documented instances of officers using long, flexible lathis to strike peaceful protesters, including children, with no sign of provocation. Evidence also shows an RAF officer using an electric shock baton—a tool the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has called for an absolute prohibition on—against a protester.
• Lethal Force in Bihar: In Siwan, video footage confirmed a state police officer firing an AK-type assault rifle into a crowd, a move that violates international standards that mandate the use of firearms only as a last resort against an imminent threat of death.

A Culture of Impunity

Aakar Patel, Chair of the Board at Amnesty International India, condemned the response as “state-sanctioned violence masked as crowd control.”

“Instead of facilitating the right to protest, Indian authorities suppressed it first with a communication blackout, barricades, and transport disruption. They then attempted to crush it with unnecessary or excessive use of force,” Patel said. “The continued impunity after a month is a testament to the lack of accountability.”

The crackdown was preceded by a systematic effort to stifle the march, including blanket internet shutdowns, the denial of assembly permits, and the closure of metro stations. These measures, Amnesty notes, are incompatible with international human rights laws regarding the freedom of peaceful assembly.

As the ongoing police impunity persists, Amnesty International is demanding that the Indian government launch an immediate, impartial, and effective investigation into the conduct of its security forces. The human rights group is also calling for the permanent withdrawal of birdshot ammunition and electric shock devices from the national law enforcement arsenal, arguing that these tools have no place in a democratic society.

The Indian authorities have yet to issue a formal response to the new evidence presented in the report.