UP government using Goondas Act as a tool of oppression: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Uttar Pradesh government was continuously using the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as a tool of oppression despite the courts regularly highlighting its misuse [Zahid Ali v State of UP and 4 Others].Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while setting aside District Magistrate Gonda's order declaring one Zahid Ali to be a ‘Goonda’. Ali had been ordered to be externed (official ordered to leave) from the district for six months.The Court said that the courts have repeatedly held that the Goonda Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas' and it must be used very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'.It added that the courts have also regularly reminded the State not to misuse it as a tool of oppression against innocent persons as the law is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence.However, the Court noted,“Numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression, and the present case is a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute.”.The Court found that out of two cases cited by police to get Ali declared a ‘Goonda’, he had already been acquitted in one of the cases. Involvement of a person in a case instituted against him cannot be made a ground to declare him a Goonda after acquittal of the person in that case, the Bench said. It also found that there was no allegation that Ali was a threat to maintenance of law order. The Court said since Ali had not filed any objection before the District Magistrate to apprise the authority about his acquittal in one of the cases, the officer could not be said to have erred in the matter.However, the Court said the police must have had knowledge about his acquittal in the case. Thus, it opined that the mention of his involvement in that case was deliberately done to portray a false picture of Ali before the District Magistrate. The Court added that though Ali mentioned this fact later in appeal before the Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, the officer had not applied her mind to the grounds taken by him and confirmed the District Magistrate’s order. .In conclusion, the Court said that Ali’s involvement in a single criminal case registered in 2020 does not establish that he habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences so as to justify his declaration as a Goonda. “There is a long time gap between the alleged acts committed by the petitioner in the year 2020 leading to lodging of Case Crime No. 430 of 2020 and declaration of the petitioner as a goonda and his externment from the limits of the District in the year 2026 and there is no reasonable nexus between registration of a criminal case in the year 2020 and declaration of the petitioner as a goonda in the year 2026,” it said.Thus, the Court quashed the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda and Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal against Ali..Advocate Kunwar Bahadur Singh represented the petitioner.Additional Government Advocate Ravi Srivastava represented the State..[Read Order]