The Allahabad High Court has issued a show cause notice to the Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home), seeking an explanation over the exclusion of District Magistrates from joint meetings meant for approving gang charts under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Justice Vinod Diwakar, in an order dated January 9, expressed concern over the state government’s approach towards the implementation of the Gangsters Act and pulled up the home department for failing to justify the non-involvement of DMs in the statutory process.
Delivering a stinging observation, the court noted:
“Even the most well-intentioned and ostensibly noble ideas are liable to miscarry when placed in the hands of poor administrators namely, those who are inadequately trained and lacking in institutional competence, yet highly ambitious and adept at manoeuvring constitutional authorities.”
The High Court asked the Additional Chief Secretary to disclose any legal impediments or reasons behind the deviation from the prescribed procedure. The matter will now be taken up for hearing on January 20.
The court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Rajendra Tyagi and two others, who alleged misuse of police powers in invoking the UP Gangsters Act against them.
The applicants specifically questioned the manner in which gang charts are being approved in the Ghaziabad Commissionerate. Under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Rules, 2021, in non-Commissionerate districts, the District Magistrate (DM) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) are required to hold a joint meeting and record their “subjective satisfaction” before approving a gang chart.
However, the petitioners alleged that in the Ghaziabad Commissionerate, this statutory safeguard is being circumvented, with the Police Commissioner exercising this power unilaterally, without involving the DM.
The court’s notice indicates judicial concern over a potential procedural violation in the exercise of police powers under a stringent law that can have serious implications for the rights of accused individuals. The role of the DM is considered vital as a civil authority meant to provide a balancing administrative oversight in criminal law enforcement mechanisms.
The case has now been listed for further hearing on January 20, and the response from the state government is awaited.
