UP Gangsters Act is stillborn: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is “stillborn” as it prescribes punishment without creating a distinct criminal offence, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

A division bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the Act merely defines a ‘gang’ and a ‘gangster’, while activities covered by those definitions are already punishable under the Indian Penal Code and other penal laws.

“After defining gang, which includes commission of the offences listed under sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) and defining gangster as a member or leader or organiser of a gang, the punishment is prescribed for a gangster without an offence being created by statute; which makes the penal act, stillborn,” the bench ruled.


Also Read: Supreme Court: Should right to work be a fundamental right?

Invoking George Orwell, the bench said the legislation was “perpetuating" violence against “unsuspecting citizens” while purporting to prevent it. It noted that activities listed under Section 2(b) of the UP Act, including kidnapping, drug trafficking and human trafficking, were already punishable under the Indian Penal Code or other penal laws.

Also Read: ‘Madan Dilawar, you have 48 hours’: CJP seeks Rajasthan minister’s resignation if demands aren’t met

The Act, therefore, merely defines the status of a person involved in one of the specified crimes as a “gangster”, without creating an offence based on that status, the court found.

The bench quashed proceedings under the Gangsters Act against two advocates, Shiv Pratap Singh and Himanshu Srivastava.

Singh’s case arose from a dispute over the Fatehgarh Bar Association elections and the disciplinary and criminal proceedings that followed. He was subsequently named as a member of an alleged gang. The second case concerned Gangsters Act proceedings against Srivastava, his brother and their father, who was alleged to be the gang leader. After the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings against Singh and Srivastava, both advocates petitioned the Supreme Court.