In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has warned against the misuse of stringent laws like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, saying that such laws should not be used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected.
"The power conferred on the State cannot be used as a means of oppression or intimidation, especially where political motivations may be at work," the Court said.
The decision came while allowing an appeal filed by Lal Mohammad and others challenging an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act. The FIR stemmed from an incident of mob clash following an inflammatory social media post targeting a religion on October 10, 2022, which led to communal tension in Khargupur, Gonda.
Despite two FIRs already being lodged and the appellants having been granted bail, a fresh FIR under the Gangsters Act was lodged just days after the daughter-in-law of appellant No. 1 filed her nomination for the Nagar Panchayat elections.
Read also: Supreme Court to Hear Tamil Nadu ADGP Jayaram’s Plea Against HC Arrest Order
The Court noted this timing and said:
“The proximity between the political nomination and the criminal case…indicates that the Gangsters Act is being used as a political vendetta rather than a genuine criminal prosecution.”
The FIR accuses the appellants of leading an organised gang that vandalised shops and incited violence. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence of persistent organised crime or gang-related activity that could justify the application of the Gangsters Act.
The Court strongly upheld the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21, highlighting that:
“Any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just and reasonable – not arbitrary, presumptive or oppressive.”
Read also: Supreme Court grants 7-day stay on demolition of Thane dargah, allows plea to recall Bombay HC order
Citing State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings can be quashed if the allegations are clearly malicious or made to incite personal vendetta.
Additionally, the Court took note of the UP government’s own guidelines issued after the Gorakh Nath Mishra case, which mandate rigorous assessment of the gravity of offences and proper verification before invoking the Act. The Court found that these guidelines were not followed in the present case.
“Extraordinary penal provisions must be invoked on the basis of credible evidence. Mere theoretical possibility does not justify curtailment of liberty.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 132/2023 and set aside the May 3, 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court which had refused to quash the FIR. However, the Court clarified that this decision will not affect the two original FIRs (CC Nos. 294 and 296/2022) which are pending before the trial court.
"When a statute imposes severe restrictions on personal liberty, the evidentiary basis for its invocation must be equally strong."
Case Title: LAL MOHD. & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
