The Supreme Court has issued a ruling regarding the use of pellet guns, stating that their deployment by security forces is restricted to exceptional circumstances. This legal determination aims to set a threshold for when such non-lethal weaponry can be utilized during civil unrest or security operations. The court’s stance suggests that while the weapons are not banned outright, their use must be limited to situations where no other reasonable force is available.

Following the announcement, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) publicly expressed strong disapproval of the court's position. The CJP characterized the decision as 'disgusting,' signaling a significant divide between the judicial ruling and the perspective of the country's top judicial official. While the court frames the ruling as a measure of controlled restraint, the CJP’s reaction highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding the human rights implications of using pellet guns, which have frequently been criticized for causing permanent injuries, including blindness, to civilians.

The ruling leaves open questions regarding how 'exceptional cases' will be defined in practice and what oversight mechanisms will be implemented to ensure security forces adhere to this standard. As it stands, the discrepancy between the court's legal framework and the CJP's moral condemnation underscores the polarized nature of the debate regarding crowd control tactics in the region.