Bureaucrats to pay damages for illegal orders under Goondas Act: Allahabad High Court warns

The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned bureaucrats in Uttar Pradesh (UP) to refrain from passing illegal and arbitrary orders under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970 [Abhishek Tyagi v Uttar Pradesh Rajya Dwara Grah Sachiv And 3 Others].

Justice Sandeep Jain warned that the officers will otherwise have to pay punitive damages from their pockets.

The judge lamented that such officials continue to brand people as 'goonda' despite the Court's repeated rulings that such action cannot be taken merely on the basis of one or two cases.

"The bureaucracy has deliberately not noticed this (the Court's warnings) and is continuing to pass orders to the contrary, which results in increasing the pendency of the Courts and suffering of the people. It is apparent that the Act of 1970 is being used as a tool of oppression by the bureaucracy and the State, which is contrary to the objects of the Act of 1970," the Court said.

The Court held that it was time to send a strong message to the bureaucrats who continue to pass such illegal orders.

"This Court has uptill now refrained from imposing damages on the bureaucrats who are continuously passing whimsical orders in purported exercise of power vested under the Act of 1970, but now time has come when a strong message is required to be sent to the bureaucracy to stop doing this or otherwise face punitive damages for arbitrary and illegal exercise of the power under the Act of 1970."

The Court made these observations in the judgment delivered on September 10 on a petition challenging an order declaring one Abhishek Tyagi to be a 'goonda'.

The Additional Commissioner of Police at the Ghaziabad Commissionerate Ghaziabad, had passed an order in September 2025, directing Tyagi to reside at his permanent address and mark his attendance every second and fourth Saturday of the month at the concerned police station for six months. 

Tyagi challenged this oder before the High Court. His counsel argued that Tyagi could not have been branded as a 'goonda' merely on the basis of two cases filed against him. On the other hand, the State said he was a habitual offender.

The Court observed that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a 'goonda.' It added that such punitive action on the part of the State causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such a person and his family. 

The Court also found that there was a gap of three years between the filing of the two criminal cases against Tyagi. It, thus, held that Tyagi was not a habitual offender as claimed by the State.

"Since, in the instant case also, the petitioner has been branded as a "Goonda" merely on the basis of two criminal cases registered against him, the proceedings initiated against him under the Act of 1970 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed," the Court ruled.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders against Tyagi. It also awarded a compensation of ₹50,000 to him for the suffering and mental agony meted out to him by declaring him 'goonda.'

The Court said the State is at liberty to recover the amount from the salary of the concerned bureaucrats.

"Such damages be paid in one month, failing which, the petitioner can initiate proceedings for its recovery in accordance with law," the Court ordered.

Advocates Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma and Anil Kumar Singh represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]