Supreme Court warns against casual invocation of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act

The Supreme Court recently cautioned that stringent laws such as the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangsters Act) should not be casually invoked merely because a person has been accused of criminal cases [Jay Kishan and Others versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others]..A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that the stricter or harsher a law is, the more carefully it must be applied.It explained the right to life and that liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by invoking such harsh laws, merely because criminal cases have been registered against a person. It would be unwise to give State authorities such unlimited powers to invoke the UP Gangsters Act, the Court opined. "Ultimately, the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked only due to the reason that criminal cases have been registered against a person. It would be plainly unwise to accord any unfettered discretion to the authorities concerned when it comes to invoking the Act. The more stringent or penal a provision, greater the emphasis and requirement for it to be strictly construed," the Court's February 12 ruling said. .The Bench also opined that this Act can only be invoked if there are serious criminal allegations involved."The case(s) against the person(s) qua whom the Act is to be invoked cannot be run-of-the-mill – it must be serious," it said.The Court added that it is refraining from issuing any straitjacket formula for the invocation of the Act since such matters would depend on the unique peculiarities of each case..The Court made the observation while quashing a case registered under the UP Gangsters Act against three individuals (appellants). The UP Police claimed that these three men were part of a criminal gang involved in extortion, fraudulent property dealings, goondaism etc. To support this allegation, the State referred to three prior cases that involved charges such as extortion, fraud, and criminal intimidation.The appellants argued that the three prior cases were actually rooted in civil property disputes between two familiesThe Court found some merit in this stance. "Scrutiny of the cases cited in the FIR to invoke the (UP Gangsters) Act against the appellants prima facie reveal that the same substantially relate to and/or emanate from certain property and monetary transactions. The said transactions are primarily civil in nature," it observed. .The Court added that it is empowered to look beyond surface allegations to assess the true nature of the claims to assess if it was appropriate to invoke the UP Gangsters Act."No doubt, addition of various Sections of the IPC in the three CCs may come under the ambit of the offences specified in Section 2(b) of the Act. However, undoubtedly, mere invocation of certain Sections of the IPC could not and would not preclude the Court from, in a manner of speaking, lifting the veil, to understand what actually lies beneath the material, which is sought to be made the basis for invoking the Act," it said.It clarified that if the allegations made in this case are found to be true, there may still be scope for the UP Gangsters Act to be invoked. However, since the trials in the three prior cases were yet to be completed, the Court held that the State's invocation of the UP Gangsters Act was premature and uncalled for. Since the allegations remained uncertain and inconclusive, the Court found that these three cases did not meet the criteria of "violence, intimidation, or coercion" required under Section 2(b) of the UP Gangsters Act to justify its invocation.It, therefore, quashed the 2023 case filed against the appellants under the UP Gangsters Act. The Court also urged the State to adhere to guidelines that the State itself had issued last year on the invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986..[Read Judgement]