The Allahabad High Court has taken serious exception to the alleged misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, directing the District Magistrate (DM), Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), and Station House Officer (SHO) of Muzaffarnagar to personally appear before the court and explain their “misconduct and negligence”.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal issued the direction while hearing the bail plea of one Manshad alias Sona, booked under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. Granting him bail, the court observed that the law had been invoked in an arbitrary and repetitive manner, merely to prolong his detention.
The court noted that the provisions of the Gangsters Act were applied against Manshad based on old criminal cases which had already been cited earlier. This, the court said, appeared to be a calculated attempt to misuse the law. “The conduct of the SHO reflects sheer misuse of the Act,” Justice Deshwal observed.
Further, the bench held that both the SSP and DM had failed to fulfil their statutory obligation under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Rules, 2021, which mandates a reasoned application of mind during the joint meeting before approving such action. The judge remarked, “This shows not only arbitrariness on the part of the SHO, but also sheer negligence on the part of the SSP and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.”
Highlighting the mechanical and repeated use of the law, the court said such conduct violates judicial precedents as well as state guidelines that were issued in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of UP. The High Court stressed that the Gangsters Act must not be invoked casually, especially when it leads to prolonged incarceration.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s continuing concerns over the misuse of the Gangsters Act. In 2024, the apex court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to formulate clear parameters for invoking the stringent law. Acting on this, the state issued a checklist and procedural guidelines on December 2, 2024, which were later endorsed by the Supreme Court in another case involving SHUATS University Director Vinod Bihari Lal.
In its June 20 order, the High Court directed the concerned Muzaffarnagar officials to appear in person on the next hearing date and to provide an explanation for their conduct. It also instructed the authorities to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court-mandated guidelines.
