The Supreme Court docket on Thursday declared the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Actions (Prevention) Act, 1986, “stillborn”, holding that the laws doesn’t create any distinct legal offence and can’t maintain prosecution and punishment merely on the idea of an individual being labelled a “gangster”.
In a strongly worded judgment, the Court docket noticed that the regulation, enacted ostensibly to curb violence and organised legal exercise, may as an alternative function towards unsuspecting residents. The Court docket stated the laws, “on the pretext of adjuring violence”, was in reality able to “perpetuating” violence towards citizen
The Court docket made these observations whereas quashing legal proceedings below the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Actions (Prevention) Act, 1986, towards two advocates, observing that the Act merely defines the standing of a “gangster” with out creating a definite offence, and the punishment prescribed below the Act is with none corresponding offence.
“…there may be no punishment with out an offence in regulation. As we discovered, the Act of 1986 doesn’t create against the law/offence and it merely defines the standing of an individual indulging in against the law, specified within the definition clause, as a ‘gangster’ going by the definition of ‘gang’ and ‘gangster’ supplied respectively below sub-sections (b) and (c) of Part 2…the penal regulation below which the legal continuing is initiated ought to create an offence and the punishment must also be in accordance with what that regulation prescribes. Wanting on the enactment, which is up for scrutiny, we can’t discover any offence having been created.”, noticed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ok. Vinod Chandran.
The case involved two advocates, specifically Shiv Pratap Singh and Himanshu Srivastava, who had been proceeded with below the UP Gangsters Act over a dispute concerning elections to the Bar Affiliation, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad. An FIR was registered below Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Act towards them.
Aggrieved by the Allahabad Excessive Court docket’s refusal to quash the proceedings, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court docket.
They argued towards the continuation of the proceedings below the UP Gangsters Act, because the Act doesn’t create any impartial offence, however merely defines phrases comparable to “gang” and “gangster” and prescribes punishment for an individual described as a gangster.
Discovering power of their arguments, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran noticed that the Act merely prescribes the definitions of ‘gang’ and ‘gangsters’ and doesn’t create any distinct impartial offences below the Act, in contrast to different penal statutes.
“The U.P. Act merely supplies for a punishment insofar as involvement in any of the actions specified below sub-clause (i) to (xxv) which is already penalised below a unique penal regulation; with out creating a definite offence below the topic Act.”, the Court docket stated.
The Court docket utilized the precept contained below Article 20(1) of the Structure i.e., “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege” i.e., no crime or punishment can exist with out a penal regulation, to notice that the UP Act is a stillborn with no creation of a definite offences and punishment, besides the definition of gang and gangsters.
The Court docket criticised the Act for enabling trial and punishment primarily based on a gang chart with out letting the precise fee of an offence be recognized.
“The topic enactment, the U.P. Act not solely permits detention for a interval with out something greater than the inclusion in a Gang Chart but in addition allows a trial and punishment on the idea of the exact same Gang Chart, along with the pre-trial incarceration, however with out an offence being created by the Act itself. It’s akin to the English proverb: ‘Give a canine a nasty identify and cling him.”, the Court docket stated.
Noticing that the U.P. Act is stillborn and the proceedings initiated below it can’t survive, the Court docket allowed each the appeals hereinabove and the proceedings impugned within the respective appeals had been quashed.
Afternote
The Court docket clarified that it was not deciding the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act. As a substitute, the choice was primarily based on the statutory defect that the Act doesn’t create a legal offence.
The Bench additionally made clear that it had not permitted the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket or conclusively rejected the constitutional challenges to the Act. These questions, it stated, remained open for consideration.
“…we take a cue from the quote of George Orwell, we extracted on the outset, to seek out that the enactment below scrutiny on the pretext of adjuring violence, is in reality perpetuating it on un-suspecting residents. We make it clear that now we have not gone into the side of constitutionality as argued earlier than the Full Bench of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket, which had been negated by that Court docket. Now we have discovered the Act to be stillborn, since there is no such thing as a crime created below the Act and this could not in any method have an effect on the fees levelled below the opposite penal legal guidelines, which has to proceed on the traces demarcated within the CrPC and the respective penal statute, which makes the objectionable act, an offence below regulation. We additionally make it clear that now we have not upheld the Gujarat Act or the Maharashtra Act referred to by us and the try was solely to attract a distinction from these; of the creation of an offence below these Acts being completely absent within the U.P. Act. We might also not be mistaken as having permitted the Full Bench of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket and or upheld the negation of all of the contentions raised towards the Act, which might be left open for consideration, particularly since now we have solely held the Act to be stillborn on the provisions as current now.”, the Court docket stated.
Trigger Title: Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu Versus State of U.P & Ors. (with linked case)
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 836
Click here to download judgment
Look:
In Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu Versus State of U.P & Ors
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikash Chandra Shukla, AOR Mr. Siddharth Relan, Adv. Ms. Isha Barshiliya, Adv. Mr. Lakshya S. Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Bhawarpal Singh Jadon, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Ms. Saumya Chauhan, Adv.
In Himanshu Srivastava Versus State of U.P & Ors.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Attau Rahman Masoodi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Christopher Dsouza, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawarpal Singh Jadon, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Ms. Saumya Chauhan, Adv.
