Rahul Gandhi questioned Amit Shah's role in police action. What does the law say?
Rahul Gandhi's allegations against Amit Shah over the police response to NEET protesters have sparked a legal debate. Who can authorise force, and when does it become lawful?
Can the Union Home Minister order police to use force against protesters? Does the imposition of prohibitory orders automatically permit a lathicharge or the use of tear gas? And who ultimately decides when force becomes lawful?
These questions have come under sharp focus after Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah of being accountable for the police action against students protesting the alleged NEET-UG paper leak.
Gandhi first raised the issue in Parliament, triggering a heated exchange with the Treasury benches, and later reiterated his allegations at a press conference, questioning who had authorised the use of force and demanding accountability from the Home Minister.
The government rejected the allegations, maintaining that police acted lawfully and denying that pellet guns or bullets were used. It also clarified that the Union Home Minister neither authorises nor issues operational orders for the use of force during law-and-order situations.
The political confrontation has turned the spotlight on the legal framework governing police powers during protests. The answers lie in a combination of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), judicial precedents and police regulations.
While the BNSS empowers authorities to disperse unlawful assemblies, it also lays down who may order the use of force, the circumstances in which it may be used and the procedural safeguards that must be followed.
Courts have repeatedly held that force is a measure of last resort and must remain proportionate to the threat faced.
WHO CAN ORDER THE USE OF FORCE?
The primary authority rests with an Executive Magistrate, the officer in charge of a police station, or any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector.
Section 148 of the BNSS empowers these officers to order an unlawful assembly, or an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb public peace, to disperse.
If the assembly refuses to comply or clearly shows that it will not disperse, they may use civil force to disperse it.
This is substantially the same framework that existed under Sections 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Notably, the BNSS does not vest this statutory power in the Union Home Minister. The law identifies the authorities responsible for issuing dispersal orders and authorising the use of force on the ground.
DOES SECTION 163 AUTOMATICALLY ALLOW POLICE ACTION?
No.
Section 163 of the BNSS empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue preventive orders restricting assemblies or certain activities to prevent danger or disturbance to public order.
However, the imposition of prohibitory orders does not, by itself, authorise the use of physical force.
Force becomes legally permissible only after a lawful direction to disperse has been issued and disobeyed, or where it is evident that the assembly will not comply.
WHAT DOES 'USE OF FORCE' MEAN?
The law recognises different levels of force.
Initially, authorities may use civil force — reasonable, non-lethal physical force — to disperse an unlawful assembly.
Only where such force proves inadequate and public security faces a serious threat can stronger measures be considered.
The BNSS also retains the earlier CrPC framework under which the armed forces may be requisitioned by an Executive Magistrate only in exceptional situations, with independent deployment by military officers permitted only when public security is in manifest danger and no magistrate can be contacted.
FORCE MUST BE THE LAST RESORT
Indian policing rules consistently emphasise that persuasion should come before coercion.
The Ministry of Home Affairs' Code of Conduct for the Police in India says police should first rely on persuasion, advice and warnings. Force should be used only when unavoidable and only to the minimum extent necessary.
The same principle appears in the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, which permits force only when strictly necessary and only to the extent required to perform official duties.
WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID?
The judiciary has repeatedly narrowed the circumstances in which force may be used.
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court held that prohibitory orders must respond to a genuine emergency, record material facts and satisfy the test of proportionality.
Authorities cannot rely on vague or speculative apprehensions.
Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, Union of India (2012)
While examining the midnight police action against Baba Ramdev's supporters, the Supreme Court stressed that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities.
Police should issue repeated warnings, make public announcements, videograph the proceedings, arrange medical assistance and ensure safe dispersal before resorting to force.
The Court also noted that Delhi Police Standing Orders require banners announcing prohibitory orders and repeated requests asking demonstrators to disperse peacefully or submit to peaceful arrest.
Significantly, the Court observed that police had failed to use water cannons before escalating to other measures.
CAN POLICE FIRE ON PROTESTERS?
In PV Kapur v Union of India (1982), the Delhi High Court held that the mere existence of an unlawful assembly — or even refusal to disperse — does not automatically justify the use of firearms.
If warnings are sufficient to disperse the crowd, force is unnecessary.
The Court also held that authorities must always choose the least harmful effective method and that the objective is to restore public order, not punish protesters.
WHAT DO POLICE RULES SAY ABOUT TEAR GAS?
Police Standing Orders require officers to assess factors such as crowd size, the temperament of the gathering and wind direction before deploying tear smoke.
Tear gas should generally not be used in enclosed spaces, and shells should be fired away from, rather than directly into, crowds.
Rule 14.56 of the Punjab Police Rules, applicable in Delhi, also requires that force remain proportionate and be confined to quelling disturbances or dispersing assemblies that refuse lawful directions to disperse.
The political debate over the recent police action has revived an important legal question about the limits of executive authority and police powers.
Taken together, the BNSS, police regulations and judicial precedents establish a clear legal principle: police cannot use force simply because a protest is taking place or because prohibitory orders have been imposed.
Equally, the statutory authority to order the dispersal of an unlawful assembly rests with the authorities identified under the BNSS—not with political office by virtue of designation alone.
Force may be used only after lawful procedures have been followed, protesters have been directed to disperse, warnings have been issued and non-coercive measures have proved ineffective.
Even then, the force employed must remain proportionate, strictly necessary and limited to the minimum required to restore public order.
Can the Union Home Minister order police to use force against protesters? Does the imposition of prohibitory orders automatically permit a lathicharge or the use of tear gas? And who ultimately decides when force becomes lawful?
These questions have come under sharp focus after Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah of being accountable for the police action against students protesting the alleged NEET-UG paper leak.
Gandhi first raised the issue in Parliament, triggering a heated exchange with the Treasury benches, and later reiterated his allegations at a press conference, questioning who had authorised the use of force and demanding accountability from the Home Minister.
The government rejected the allegations, maintaining that police acted lawfully and denying that pellet guns or bullets were used. It also clarified that the Union Home Minister neither authorises nor issues operational orders for the use of force during law-and-order situations.
The political confrontation has turned the spotlight on the legal framework governing police powers during protests. The answers lie in a combination of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), judicial precedents and police regulations.
While the BNSS empowers authorities to disperse unlawful assemblies, it also lays down who may order the use of force, the circumstances in which it may be used and the procedural safeguards that must be followed.
Courts have repeatedly held that force is a measure of last resort and must remain proportionate to the threat faced.
WHO CAN ORDER THE USE OF FORCE?
The primary authority rests with an Executive Magistrate, the officer in charge of a police station, or any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector.
Section 148 of the BNSS empowers these officers to order an unlawful assembly, or an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb public peace, to disperse.
If the assembly refuses to comply or clearly shows that it will not disperse, they may use civil force to disperse it.
This is substantially the same framework that existed under Sections 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Notably, the BNSS does not vest this statutory power in the Union Home Minister. The law identifies the authorities responsible for issuing dispersal orders and authorising the use of force on the ground.
DOES SECTION 163 AUTOMATICALLY ALLOW POLICE ACTION?
No.
Section 163 of the BNSS empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue preventive orders restricting assemblies or certain activities to prevent danger or disturbance to public order.
However, the imposition of prohibitory orders does not, by itself, authorise the use of physical force.
Force becomes legally permissible only after a lawful direction to disperse has been issued and disobeyed, or where it is evident that the assembly will not comply.
WHAT DOES 'USE OF FORCE' MEAN?
The law recognises different levels of force.
Initially, authorities may use civil force — reasonable, non-lethal physical force — to disperse an unlawful assembly.
Only where such force proves inadequate and public security faces a serious threat can stronger measures be considered.
The BNSS also retains the earlier CrPC framework under which the armed forces may be requisitioned by an Executive Magistrate only in exceptional situations, with independent deployment by military officers permitted only when public security is in manifest danger and no magistrate can be contacted.
FORCE MUST BE THE LAST RESORT
Indian policing rules consistently emphasise that persuasion should come before coercion.
The Ministry of Home Affairs' Code of Conduct for the Police in India says police should first rely on persuasion, advice and warnings. Force should be used only when unavoidable and only to the minimum extent necessary.
The same principle appears in the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, which permits force only when strictly necessary and only to the extent required to perform official duties.
WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID?
The judiciary has repeatedly narrowed the circumstances in which force may be used.
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court held that prohibitory orders must respond to a genuine emergency, record material facts and satisfy the test of proportionality.
Authorities cannot rely on vague or speculative apprehensions.
Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, Union of India (2012)
While examining the midnight police action against Baba Ramdev's supporters, the Supreme Court stressed that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities.
Police should issue repeated warnings, make public announcements, videograph the proceedings, arrange medical assistance and ensure safe dispersal before resorting to force.
The Court also noted that Delhi Police Standing Orders require banners announcing prohibitory orders and repeated requests asking demonstrators to disperse peacefully or submit to peaceful arrest.
Significantly, the Court observed that police had failed to use water cannons before escalating to other measures.
CAN POLICE FIRE ON PROTESTERS?
In PV Kapur v Union of India (1982), the Delhi High Court held that the mere existence of an unlawful assembly — or even refusal to disperse — does not automatically justify the use of firearms.
If warnings are sufficient to disperse the crowd, force is unnecessary.
The Court also held that authorities must always choose the least harmful effective method and that the objective is to restore public order, not punish protesters.
WHAT DO POLICE RULES SAY ABOUT TEAR GAS?
Police Standing Orders require officers to assess factors such as crowd size, the temperament of the gathering and wind direction before deploying tear smoke.
Tear gas should generally not be used in enclosed spaces, and shells should be fired away from, rather than directly into, crowds.
Rule 14.56 of the Punjab Police Rules, applicable in Delhi, also requires that force remain proportionate and be confined to quelling disturbances or dispersing assemblies that refuse lawful directions to disperse.
The political debate over the recent police action has revived an important legal question about the limits of executive authority and police powers.
Taken together, the BNSS, police regulations and judicial precedents establish a clear legal principle: police cannot use force simply because a protest is taking place or because prohibitory orders have been imposed.
Equally, the statutory authority to order the dispersal of an unlawful assembly rests with the authorities identified under the BNSS—not with political office by virtue of designation alone.
Force may be used only after lawful procedures have been followed, protesters have been directed to disperse, warnings have been issued and non-coercive measures have proved ineffective.
Even then, the force employed must remain proportionate, strictly necessary and limited to the minimum required to restore public order.
Can the Union Home Minister order police to use force against protesters? Does the imposition of prohibitory orders automatically permit a lathicharge or the use of tear gas? And who ultimately decides when force becomes lawful?
These questions have come under sharp focus after Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah of being accountable for the police action against students protesting the alleged NEET-UG paper leak.
Gandhi first raised the issue in Parliament, triggering a heated exchange with the Treasury benches, and later reiterated his allegations at a press conference, questioning who had authorised the use of force and demanding accountability from the Home Minister.
The government rejected the allegations, maintaining that police acted lawfully and denying that pellet guns or bullets were used. It also clarified that the Union Home Minister neither authorises nor issues operational orders for the use of force during law-and-order situations.
The political confrontation has turned the spotlight on the legal framework governing police powers during protests. The answers lie in a combination of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), judicial precedents and police regulations.
While the BNSS empowers authorities to disperse unlawful assemblies, it also lays down who may order the use of force, the circumstances in which it may be used and the procedural safeguards that must be followed.
Courts have repeatedly held that force is a measure of last resort and must remain proportionate to the threat faced.
WHO CAN ORDER THE USE OF FORCE?
The primary authority rests with an Executive Magistrate, the officer in charge of a police station, or any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector.
Section 148 of the BNSS empowers these officers to order an unlawful assembly, or an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb public peace, to disperse.
If the assembly refuses to comply or clearly shows that it will not disperse, they may use civil force to disperse it.
This is substantially the same framework that existed under Sections 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Notably, the BNSS does not vest this statutory power in the Union Home Minister. The law identifies the authorities responsible for issuing dispersal orders and authorising the use of force on the ground.
DOES SECTION 163 AUTOMATICALLY ALLOW POLICE ACTION?
No.
Section 163 of the BNSS empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue preventive orders restricting assemblies or certain activities to prevent danger or disturbance to public order.
However, the imposition of prohibitory orders does not, by itself, authorise the use of physical force.
Force becomes legally permissible only after a lawful direction to disperse has been issued and disobeyed, or where it is evident that the assembly will not comply.
WHAT DOES 'USE OF FORCE' MEAN?
The law recognises different levels of force.
Initially, authorities may use civil force — reasonable, non-lethal physical force — to disperse an unlawful assembly.
Only where such force proves inadequate and public security faces a serious threat can stronger measures be considered.
The BNSS also retains the earlier CrPC framework under which the armed forces may be requisitioned by an Executive Magistrate only in exceptional situations, with independent deployment by military officers permitted only when public security is in manifest danger and no magistrate can be contacted.
FORCE MUST BE THE LAST RESORT
Indian policing rules consistently emphasise that persuasion should come before coercion.
The Ministry of Home Affairs' Code of Conduct for the Police in India says police should first rely on persuasion, advice and warnings. Force should be used only when unavoidable and only to the minimum extent necessary.
The same principle appears in the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, which permits force only when strictly necessary and only to the extent required to perform official duties.
WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID?
The judiciary has repeatedly narrowed the circumstances in which force may be used.
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court held that prohibitory orders must respond to a genuine emergency, record material facts and satisfy the test of proportionality.
Authorities cannot rely on vague or speculative apprehensions.
Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, Union of India (2012)
While examining the midnight police action against Baba Ramdev's supporters, the Supreme Court stressed that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities.
Police should issue repeated warnings, make public announcements, videograph the proceedings, arrange medical assistance and ensure safe dispersal before resorting to force.
The Court also noted that Delhi Police Standing Orders require banners announcing prohibitory orders and repeated requests asking demonstrators to disperse peacefully or submit to peaceful arrest.
Significantly, the Court observed that police had failed to use water cannons before escalating to other measures.
CAN POLICE FIRE ON PROTESTERS?
In PV Kapur v Union of India (1982), the Delhi High Court held that the mere existence of an unlawful assembly — or even refusal to disperse — does not automatically justify the use of firearms.
If warnings are sufficient to disperse the crowd, force is unnecessary.
The Court also held that authorities must always choose the least harmful effective method and that the objective is to restore public order, not punish protesters.
WHAT DO POLICE RULES SAY ABOUT TEAR GAS?
Police Standing Orders require officers to assess factors such as crowd size, the temperament of the gathering and wind direction before deploying tear smoke.
Tear gas should generally not be used in enclosed spaces, and shells should be fired away from, rather than directly into, crowds.
Rule 14.56 of the Punjab Police Rules, applicable in Delhi, also requires that force remain proportionate and be confined to quelling disturbances or dispersing assemblies that refuse lawful directions to disperse.
The political debate over the recent police action has revived an important legal question about the limits of executive authority and police powers.
Taken together, the BNSS, police regulations and judicial precedents establish a clear legal principle: police cannot use force simply because a protest is taking place or because prohibitory orders have been imposed.
Equally, the statutory authority to order the dispersal of an unlawful assembly rests with the authorities identified under the BNSS—not with political office by virtue of designation alone.
Force may be used only after lawful procedures have been followed, protesters have been directed to disperse, warnings have been issued and non-coercive measures have proved ineffective.
Even then, the force employed must remain proportionate, strictly necessary and limited to the minimum required to restore public order.
