Supreme Court declares UP Gangsters Act 'stillborn', warns it can be misused against citizens
The Supreme Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is 'stillborn' as it prescribes punishment without creating a legally valid offence. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that the law, meant to curb organised crime, is prone to misuse and could be turned against unsuspecting citizens.
The court explained that the Act defines a 'gang' to include commission of offences listed under sub-clauses (i) to (xxv), and defines a 'gangster' as a member, leader or organiser of such a gang. However, it said, the punishment is prescribed for a gangster without a clear offence being created by the statute. This makes the penal Act 'stillborn' — a legal term for a statute that is invalid or void from its inception.
Quoting English author George Orwell, the Bench said, 'Those who abjure violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.' The court acknowledged the need to curb criminal gangs, but stressed that the end does not justify the means, especially when a penal law interferes with the liberty of citizens.
The court also noted that the provisions of the Act could lead to prolonged detention without trial, similar to preventive detention. While preventive detention is permissible under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is subject to strict safeguards. Even a minor procedural violation would entitle the detenu to release. The court added that however compelling the social menace, a penal enactment cannot permit arbitrary and capricious action against a person accused of an offence.
The judgement came in a case where the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under the UP Gangsters Act against two advocates. The court found that the law was capable of 'perpetuating violence against citizens on the pretext of adjuring violence'.
The ruling raises important questions about the drafting of special state laws and the need for precision in defining offences. It underscores the principle that personal liberty cannot be curtailed except through clear, valid legal provisions.
