A closer look at Supreme Court’s concerns on misuse of Gangsters Act in UP

May 20, 2025 by News Desk

Advocate Sanjeev Sirohi

In a significant development reflecting judicial scrutiny of executive overreach, the Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the indiscriminate invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

The case that brought this issue into the spotlight involved Gorakh Nath Mishra, who had been booked under Section 3(1) of the Act. Upon examining the facts in detail, the Supreme Court found that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in his case and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to revisit not just Mishra’s case, but similar pending cases as well.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, categorically set aside the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision and held that, “In light of the guidelines, respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and it has been found that provisions of the Act are not attracted. That being so, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.”

In response to the apex court’s directive, the Uttar Pradesh government issued a comprehensive set of 29 guidelines on December 2, 2024, aimed at preventing arbitrary application of the Act and ensuring due process is followed in all cases. These guidelines seek to bring transparency and accountability to the process of identifying and prosecuting individuals under the Gangsters Act and are rooted in the Rule of Law, especially in light of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The state government has now clarified that the provisions of the Act are to be invoked strictly in cases involving serious criminal conduct where violence, threat, or coercion is used with the intention of disturbing public order or obtaining undue advantage. It is no longer sufficient for the authorities to rely on the mere registration of criminal cases. The guidelines make it mandatory to document the latest status of every case listed in the gang chart, and to ensure that there is a clear correlation between the alleged crimes and the statutory definition of a gangster under Section 2(b) of the Act.

Equally significant is the emphasis placed on procedural diligence. Authorities such as the Police Commissioner, District Magistrate, and Nodal Officers are now required to sign off on gang charts only after a detailed joint review, and after certifying that all documentary evidence has been thoroughly considered. Additionally, investigations under the Act must be concluded within six months, with only limited scope for extension. Investigators from the police station where the FIR is registered are prohibited from handling the investigation to avoid conflict of interest—an acknowledgment of concerns raised over bias and misuse.

Another important aspect of the guidelines is the explicit bar on granting benefits of government schemes, services, or contracts to individuals listed in gang charts. Where appropriate, administrative steps such as property attachment, cancellation of licenses, and appointment of administrators must also be taken to prevent any misuse of public resources by organized criminal elements.

The guidelines also include punitive consequences for public servants who abet gangsters or fail to comply with the rules. A bureaucrat found guilty of aiding a gangster may now face three to ten years in prison. On the flip side, officers failing to follow due procedure in initiating action under the Act could themselves face disciplinary action, as emphasized in the compliance affidavit submitted by the state government.

Importantly, the Supreme Court has gone a step further. In November 2024, a Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai—now Chief Justice of India since May 14, 2025—and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued notice in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Gangsters Act and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. The next hearing in that case is scheduled for May 20, and the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how the state enforces its anti-gang laws going forward.

In a time when governments face growing scrutiny over the use of stringent laws, this judicial intervention underscores the importance of balancing state power with individual liberties. The UP government’s move to codify clear, enforceable standards is a welcome step in the right direction. But whether these reforms translate into meaningful change on the ground remains to be seen.

As the nation watches closely, the UP Gangsters Act saga is fast becoming a test case for how democratic institutions—executive, judiciary, and civil society—navigate the thin line between maintaining public order and safeguarding constitutional freedoms.

Advocate Sanjeev Sirohi, based in Meerut Uttar Pradesh writes legal articles for The Kashmiriyat