A police constable in Siwan has been suspended following an incident in which he discharged an AK-47 rifle during student protests centered on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). The District Magistrate (DM) of Siwan has explicitly stated that the officer acted without authorization, confirming that no official orders were issued to open fire on the demonstrators.
The incident has sparked significant concern regarding the deployment of high-caliber military-grade weaponry during civil unrest and the subsequent breakdown of the police chain of command. While the officer reportedly fired into the air, the event coincided with reports of three individuals sustaining bullet injuries, though authorities note these injuries occurred at locations separate from the immediate site of the firing.
The Siwan District Magistrate confirmed that Constable Abhishek Kumar is the officer responsible for the discharge of the weapon. According to the DM, the action was entirely inappropriate given the nature of the commotion and the circumstances of the protest. The administration has moved swiftly to suspend Kumar, distancing the official police response from the individual actions of the constable.
The protests in Siwan were part of a broader wave of student unrest linked to the NEET examinations, with demonstrators voicing grievances over perceived irregularities and systemic issues within the testing process. As tensions escalated, police were deployed to manage the crowds. It was during this deployment that Constable Kumar utilized an AK-47, a weapon typically reserved for high-security threats or specialized operations, rather than standard crowd-control measures.
The reporting of three bullet injuries has added a layer of complexity to the investigation. While the DM maintains that the constable fired into the air, the occurrence of injuries in the vicinity—albeit at separate locations—has prompted a deeper inquiry. Authorities are currently working to determine if there is a direct causal link between the rounds fired by Kumar and the injuries sustained by the three individuals, or if the injuries resulted from separate, unrelated incidents occurring simultaneously during the unrest.
Analysis:
The deployment of an AK-47 in a student protest environment represents a severe escalation of force. Standard operating procedure for crowd control in India typically prioritizes non-lethal interventions, such as water cannons, tear gas, or lathi charges, before escalating to firearms. The presence of a high-velocity assault rifle in a civilian protest setting suggests either a failure in equipment allocation or a disregard for proportional response protocols.
Furthermore, the District Magistrate’s insistence that “no orders to open fire” were given points to a critical failure in disciplinary adherence. When a subordinate officer bypasses the chain of command to discharge a weapon, it indicates a breakdown in tactical supervision. If the officer felt the situation warranted such a response, it suggests a lack of training in de-escalation; if the action was impulsive, it suggests a dangerous lack of stability in the personnel entrusted with lethal weaponry.
The discrepancy between the claim that shots were fired “into the air” and the report of three injured persons is a focal point for forensic scrutiny. In ballistic terms, rounds fired upward can return to earth with enough velocity to cause serious injury or death. However, the DM’s note that injuries occurred at “separate locations” may be an attempt to decouple the constable’s actions from the casualties. A rigorous investigation must determine whether these “separate locations” were within the trajectory of the rounds fired by Kumar.
The context of NEET protests across India has historically been volatile, often involving young populations feeling marginalized by institutional failures. When the state responds—even through an unauthorized individual officer—with military-grade hardware, it risks further radicalizing the protest movement and eroding public trust in law enforcement.
The background of this incident is rooted in the ongoing controversy surrounding the NEET examinations, which have become a flashpoint for discussions on educational equity and transparency in India. Students have repeatedly taken to the streets to demand accountability from testing authorities, alleging leaks and corruption. In such high-emotion environments, the psychological impact of seeing an AK-47 deployed by police can exacerbate panic and aggression, creating a feedback loop of violence.
The use of such weaponry is typically reserved for counter-insurgency or high-risk security details. Its appearance in a civic protest in Siwan raises questions about why such a weapon was issued to a constable on crowd-control duty and who authorized the arming of the unit with assault rifles rather than standard-issue police gear.
Moving forward, several key developments will determine the trajectory of this case. First, the results of the forensic ballistic report will be crucial in establishing whether the bullets recovered from the injured individuals match the weapon used by Constable Kumar. This will either validate the DM’s claim that the injuries were unrelated or prove that the “firing into the air” had lethal consequences.
Second, the investigation will likely expand to include the supervising officers who were on-site. The chain of command must be scrutinized to understand how a constable was able to discharge an AK-47 without immediate intervention or oversight from senior officers.
Third, the administrative response to the NEET protests will be watched closely. If the government fails to address the underlying grievances of the students, the Siwan incident may serve as a catalyst for increased unrest in other regions, with protesters citing police brutality as an additional grievance.
In conclusion, the suspension of Constable Abhishek Kumar is a necessary administrative step, but it does not address the systemic questions regarding the militarization of local police responses to student dissent. The Siwan administration’s effort to frame the event as an isolated act of an unauthorized officer may mitigate immediate legal liability for the department, but it leaves the broader issue of police accountability and the proportional use of force unresolved. The integrity of the subsequent investigation will be the primary measure of whether the state is committed to transparency or merely managing the optics of a volatile situation.
Sources:
Times of India – [He had no orders to open fire: Siwan DM on suspended constable who fired AK-47 during NEET protest](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/he-had-no-orders-to-open-fire-siwan-dm-on-suspended-constable-who-fired-ak-47-during-neet-protest/articleshow/132663581.cms)
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Times of India – Top Stories — source
