In a significant development for criminal jurisprudence in India, the Supreme Court has ordered that all pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, be clubbed together for adjudication by a three-judge bench.
The order, passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, marks a critical step in addressing long-standing legal concerns surrounding the 1986 Act. The court has also formally impleaded the Central Government as a party to the proceedings, reflecting the potential national implications of the verdict.
During the hearing, senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing the petitioners, highlighted the procedural complexities arising from related cases being distributed across different benches. He noted that while a coordinate bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan is currently examining Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—the new provision dealing with organized crime—the present petitions specifically target the provisions of the UP Gangsters Act.
Addressing suggestions of “bench hunting,” Alam clarified the petitioners’ stance: “There is no question of any bench hunting on our part. If anything, it requires an explanation from the other side as to how the present matter was listed here while connected cases were being heard elsewhere.”
Alam further argued that a July 2025 dismissal of a previous petition related to the Act did not constitute a legal “merger” or binding precedent, as that dismissal occurred without a detailed adjudication on the case’s merits.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the Uttar Pradesh law is not an isolated piece of legislation but part of a wider national trend. Several states have enacted similar frameworks to dismantle structured criminal networks, including the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Gujarat Control of Terrorised and Organised Crime Act (GUJCTOC).
“There are similar legislative frameworks across states,” the CJI noted. “Provisions dealing with organized crime have been enacted in states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Delhi.”
The Court observed that these laws are designed to provide the state with robust mechanisms to investigate and enforce laws against organized criminal networks, aiming to strengthen enforcement through coordinated assistance across multiple agencies.
Seeking to streamline the adjudication process and ensure consistency in the interpretation of organized crime laws, the bench directed the registry to tag all pending matters.
“Let all pending petitions be tagged along with the present matter, except those which are part-heard,” the bench ordered. “Part-heard matters shall not be transferred. List all tagged matters before a bench of three judges.”
The upcoming review by the three-judge bench is expected to provide much-needed clarity on the constitutional boundaries of the UP Gangsters Act and its interaction with the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
