New Delhi, November 29 – The Supreme Court of India on Friday sought the Uttar Pradesh government’s response to a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The plea, as reported by Bar and Bench, alleges that the Act is being misused by the police to arbitrarily target individuals and attach their properties.
The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, issued the notice after hearing senior advocate R. Basant, who argued that the Act allows police to function as the complainant, prosecutor, and adjudicator, enabling them to exercise sweeping powers. Basant highlighted that the law facilitates the attachment of the entire property of an accused without proper judicial scrutiny.
As per Bar and Bench, the petition was filed by Siraj Ahmad Khan and another individual, represented by advocates Manish Kumar Gupta, Mohd Faris, Aman Kumar, Raunak Arora, Akash Rajeev, and Indra Lal.
Challenges to the Act
The plea claims that certain provisions of the Act and its accompanying 2021 Rules violate fundamental rights. It particularly challenges Sections 3, 12, and 14 of the Act, along with Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3), and 40. Rule 22, for example, permits the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) based on a single act or omission, making the accused’s criminal history irrelevant.
The re-registration of FIRs for offenses already covered under previous cases was also flagged as problematic. According to the petition, this amounts to double jeopardy and is a violation of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court is also considering a related public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2022, which remains pending. That PIL, filed by advocate Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, echoes similar concerns, including misuse of provisions related to case registration, property attachment, and trials, Bar and Bench reported.
Concerns of Misuse
The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, enacted in 1986, was designed to combat organized crime and anti-social activities in the state. However, critics argue that the Act grants disproportionate powers to law enforcement, allowing them to act without adequate judicial oversight. This has led to allegations of misuse, particularly in the attachment of properties under Rule 16(3).
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
