Allahabad High Court Flags Misuse of UP Goondas Act; Calls for Uniform Guidelines
The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has highlighted the rampant misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The bench, consisting of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, has directed the State Government to establish uniform guidelines by October 31 concerning the Act’s applicability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The Allahabad High Court’s intervention came while addressing a writ petition filed by an individual named Govardhan. He challenged a notice served to him under Section 3 of the UP ‘Goondas Act’ (externment). This notice, issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh, labeled him a ‘habitual offender’ based on the criteria set in Section 2(b) of the Act.
The Act’s provisions state that anyone branded as a “Goonda” must be removed from the city’s municipal limits as a preventive measure. This decision is made by the district’s executive authorities, who pass an externment order under Section 3. The individual in question should either habitually commit the offenses mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act or show a recurring tendency to do so.
Govardhan’s counsel argued that the notice only cited a single criminal case and one beat report against him. As per the Court’s established definition, “one” cannot be deemed a ‘habitual offender’ unless there’s a recurring pattern of offenses. Moreover, Govardhan had been granted anticipatory bail for the solitary case mentioned, which remains pending.
The Court observed,
“In the instant case there is the solitary case and solely on this basis no executive authority can justify that we find that this notice is nothing, but a sheer abuse of power vested in the executive authorities of the district.”
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that every citizen has a fundamental right to live peacefully and pursue their profession. Before issuing notices under this stringent law, executive authorities must thoroughly assess an individual’s past behavior, family background, and societal standing.
The Court remarked,
“…after assessing all these factors if the executive authorities come to the conclusion that individual is a “Goonda” or a potential threat to society at large and should be thrown out from the municipal limits, then only by well-reasoned order, after applying his own independent judicial mind pass a well-reasoned order for externment of that individual or even issue notice to that individual calling upon him to justify his past conduct.”
The Court further stated that casual and irresponsible branding of a person as a “Goonda” can irreparably damage their reputation and that of their family. The Court expressed its strong displeasure over the casual use of provisions from the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti
