New Delhi, June 19, 2025
In a firm rebuke to arbitrary state action, the Supreme Court of India has held that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is meant to deal with serious threats to law and order not as a blanket tool to punish dissenters or civilians involved in isolated criminal accusations.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that invoking the Gangsters Act demands strict statutory compliance, not vague allegations or retaliatory police action. The court quashed an FIR filed under the Act against several individuals who were allegedly part of a local mob protest that turned unruly following a communal incident.
Court’s Key Observations
1. Seriousness of the Law Requires Serious Scrutiny
The Bench clarified that the Gangsters Act is a special legislation meant to tackle structured, repeat criminal enterprises. It is not designed for occasional or unconnected criminal behavior, and certainly not for settling political or personal scores.
2. Due Process Cannot Be Sacrificed
The court strongly disapproved of the delayed filing of the FIR and lack of evidence showing gang-related activities. The prosecution, the court noted, had not produced even a basic gang chart or any indication of a pattern of criminal conduct.
3. Fundamental Rights Must Be Respected
The ruling reemphasized that even individuals accused of crimes are entitled to constitutional protections, including the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a 2022 incident in Khargupur, Uttar Pradesh, where a protest escalated into vandalism after a religiously sensitive social media post. Local police invoked the Gangsters Act nearly six months later, leading to the arrest and prolonged detention of the accused.
In its 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the belated and vague application of such a powerful law points to possible abuse, especially in politically sensitive environments.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling is expected to serve as a cautionary precedent for state police forces across India, particularly in states where special laws are routinely invoked to suppress dissent or expedite arrests without adequate legal basis. Legal experts have welcomed the judgment as a step toward restoring public trust in criminal jurisprudence.
Case Details
• Case Name: Lal Mohd & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
