The Uttar Pradesh government is on the verge of finalizing new guidelines for the application of its rigorous anti-gangsters legislation, as informed to the Supreme Court on Thursday. The state represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, indicated that a reassessment of ongoing criminal cases under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act is imminent due to concerns over some of its “draconian” provisions.
During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the need for the government to carefully consider where the law should be applied. “Some of the provisions are draconian. Government must examine where it should be applicable and where it should not be applicable,” the justices stated.
In response, ASG Nataraj reassured the bench, “In compliance with the court’s earlier order, the government is formulating new guidelines on the applicability of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. It is almost ready and we will put it on record. The existing cases will also be examined on whether the law should be applicable or not.”
This statement was made in the context of a plea by Gorakh Nath Mishra, who sought to quash an FIR lodged against him under the act—a plea that was previously denied by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court has now linked Mishra’s case with another, indicating a broader review of the act’s application across similar cases.
The bench set a date for revisiting these discussions in the first week of January 2025, signaling an upcoming critical evaluation of the law, enacted in 1986, which currently prescribes imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years and fines for violations, with harsher penalties for offences involving public servants.
This legislative scrutiny arrives amidst multiple challenges to the act’s validity, with recent judicial comments highlighting its potentially overreaching impact. On December 4, Justice B R Gavai also labeled the law as “draconian” while hearing a related case, reflecting a growing judicial apprehension about the broad and punitive nature of the law.
