Stringent Penal Laws Like UP Gangsters Act Can't Be Used As Tool Of Harassment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court cautioned against the routine invocation of stringent extraordinary legislation like the UP Gangsters Act (“Act”), stating that such laws must be invoked judiciously based on relevant considerations without acting as a tool for harassment.

“The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked…The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made these remarks while quashing an FIR dated 30th April 2023, lodged against the Appellants under the Act in relation to an incident that took place on 10th October 2022 shortly after Appellant No. 1's daughter-in-law filed her nomination for the Chairperson post of the Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on 17th April 2023.

The bench questioned the timing of the FIR, also noting that the prosecution had failed to establish any evidence of the Appellants' involvement in continuous organised criminal activity since the initial FIR registered under the IPC.

Because the Appellants were involved in a single incident of mob clash, with no evidence of their continuous involvement in the anti-social activities, thus the court noted that the Act cannot be applied to individuals solely for their involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity, in the absence of evidence indicating prior or ongoing coordinated criminal conduct.

The Court added that given the stringent nature of the Act, the Act cannot be invoked to deprive the person of its life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

“It is trite law that any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive. This principle, firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence, forms the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”, the court observed.

“It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.”, the court added.

Guidelines Framed By UP Govt. In Compliance With Gorakh Nath Mishra's Case Were Not Met In Present Case To Invoke Act

Additionally, the bench noted that the guidelines framed by the UP Govt. in compliance of the Gorakh Nath Misra v. State of UP case were not met as the guidelines emphasized on the need for rigorous assessment of the gravity of underlying offences, established patterns of criminal activity, and proper verification of criminal antecedents before invoking the Act, which was absent in the present case.

Case Title: LAL MOHD. & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Click here to read/download the judgment

Also From judgment: Mere Involvement In Communal Clash Not Enough To Attract UP Gangsters Act Without Proof Of Habitual Criminality : Supreme Court

Related: Know The Law | UP Govt's Directions On When Gangsters Act Can Be Invoked & How Gang Chart Is To Be Prepared