Plea filed before Supreme Court challenging constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangsters Act) [Md. Anas Chaudhary v State of UP]..The PIL filed through Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary challenges Section 3, 12 and 14 of the Act as well as Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of the 2021 Rules, which deal with registration of cases, attachment of properties, investigation and trial..Rule 22, which says that a single act or omission would be sufficient to register a first information report (FIR) under the Act, and that the criminal history of the accused is not relevant, has been described as being violative of fundamental rights. The re-registration of an FIR under the Act against a person who has committed a crime and against whom an FIR has already been registered, amounts to double jeopardy, in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, the plea states..The Gangsters Act and Rules do not provide any classification of accused persons. Therefore, it is being misused by the police, who invoke the provisions arbitrarily against whoever they want, said the plea..As regards attachment of property of violators of the Act, the petitioner points out that the District Magistrate is the prosecutor under the Gangsters Act and also an adjudicator under the Gangsters Rules, in clear violation of the principles of natural justiceThe discretionary power vested with the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate to decide the issue of acquisition of property by the accused or another person of his family has also been challenged..The provision of the Act allowing police to remand accused for 60 days is challenged as being excessive..As per Section 12 of the Act, the special court trying cases under the Act will have precedence over the trial in any other case or the base case. As a consequence, a person who may be acquitted in another case may be subsequently proceeded against under the Gangsters Act, the plea claims..The plea further contends that the Act miserably fails on the touchstone of Article 14 and the parameters of non-arbitrariness mentioned therein.Since the Act gives arbitrary power to the authorities to invoke its provisions on their own satisfaction, it is an affront to the principle of reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, the plea added."Arbitrary power of the authorities on their own satisfaction violates even the classical twin tests of classification under Article 14 evolved by this Hon'ble Court in Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75), which require that (i) there should be a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia; and (11) this classification should have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. The classification in the Act must be founded on the basis of intelligible differentia."