The Allahabad High Court quashed a “Goonda” declaration and six-month externment, holding that a single pending case cannot establish the “habitual” criminality the law requires, that the police “deliberately portrayed a false picture” by relying on a case in which the man had been acquitted years earlier, and calling it “a glaring example of the abuse” of the Goonda Act.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order declaring a man a “Goonda” and externing him from Gonda district for six months, holding that his involvement in a solitary pending criminal case could not make out the “habitual” criminality that the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 requires, and observing that the case was “a glaring example of the abuse” of the statute, which continues to be used by the State “as a tool of oppression” [Zahid Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 Others].
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, of the Lucknow Bench, allowed the writ petition and quashed both the District Magistrate’s externment order and the Commissioner’s appellate order affirming it.
The externment, built on two cases, one of them long since acquitted
The District Magistrate, Gonda, had declared the petitioner a Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Act and externed him for six months, relying on a police report that cited his involvement in two criminal cases, one from 2010 and one from 2020, along with a “beat information report.” But as the High Court noted, the petitioner had been acquitted in the 2010 case by a Chief Judicial Magistrate back in August 2017, a fact the State did not deny. That left only a single pending case, from 2020, against him.
The Court was categorical that an acquitted case cannot count: “Involvement of a person in a case instituted against him cannot be made a ground to declare him a Goonda after acquittal of the person in that case.” With the 2010 case gone, the externment rested on a solitary 2020 prosecution, which, the Court held, came nowhere near the statutory threshold.
ALSO READ: One Can’t Be Externed Merely For Taking Part In Protests Against Govt: Bombay High Court
What ‘habitual’ means under the Goonda Act
Central to the decision is the meaning of “Goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Act, which turns on a person habitually committing certain offences. Drawing on a line of its own precedents, the Court reiterated that “habitually” means “repeatedly” or “persistently,” connoting “some degree of frequency and continuity”, “a continuance and permanence of some tendency… a propensity… present from day to day”, and that “repeated, persistent and similar but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.”
Applying that standard, the Court held that involvement in a single case from 2020 could not establish that the petitioner “habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of” the offences that would justify a Goonda declaration under Section 2(b)(i). It also noted the absence of any reasonable nexus between a case registered in 2020 and a Goonda declaration in 2026: “There is a long time gap… and there is no reasonable nexus between registration of a criminal case in the year 2020 and declaration of the petitioner as a goonda in the year 2026.”
‘The police deliberately portrayed a false picture’
The Court reserved some of its sharpest criticism for the conduct of the authorities. Although the petitioner had not himself flagged his acquittal before the District Magistrate, the Court reasoned that the police “must have had knowledge” of the 2017 acquittal, so its inclusion of the acquitted case in the report “indicates that the police has deliberately portrayed a false picture of the petitioner before the District Magistrate.”
The appellate authority fared no better. The Commissioner, though expressly told of the acquittal and recording it in the order, still concluded that the petitioner was involved in “two criminal cases,” including the very case in which he stood acquitted. That, the Court held, showed the Commissioner “has not applied her mind to the grounds taken by the petitioner,” rendering the appellate order “unsustainable in law” for non-application of mind.
On the “beat information report,” the Court added a natural-justice caveat: since no case is registered on the basis of such a report and the affected person is given no hearing on it, an inquiry founded on a beat information report, without an opportunity of hearing, cannot be used to declare a person a Goonda, as it would violate the principles of natural justice.
ALSO READ: West Bengal Passes Preventive Detention Bill: What It Means For Every Citizen
‘A tool of oppression’: the Court’s warning
Beyond the individual case, the Court delivered a pointed rebuke to the pattern it said it was witnessing. It recalled the settled position that the Goonda Act is a powerful tool to be used “very sparingly in very clear cases,” that it must not be misused “as a tool of oppression of innocent persons,” and that it “is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence”, the externment power being meant for hardened or habitual criminals who cannot readily be brought under the ordinary penal law. Here, the Court stressed, the petitioner was facing a single ordinary prosecution and was very much being dealt with under the ordinary law.
The Court then made a broader observation about the frequency of such cases:
“Numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression, and the present case is a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute.”
Holding both orders “unsustainable in law,” the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Goonda declaration and the externment, as well as the appellate order affirming them.
Why the judgment matters
The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the limits on preventive-externment powers, which allow the State to brand a person a “Goonda” and banish him from a district without a criminal conviction. Because such orders bypass the ordinary safeguards of a trial, courts have insisted that they be confined to genuine cases of habitual criminality and public disorder, and this decision enforces that discipline on three fronts at once: it holds that an acquitted case cannot be counted, that a single pending prosecution cannot show the “habit” the Act demands, and that a stale case bearing no nexus to the present cannot support externment.
Equally important is the Court’s willingness to name the pattern. By recording that the police “deliberately portrayed a false picture,” that the appellate authority failed to apply its mind, and that “numerous cases” reaching the Court show the Goonda Act being wielded “as a tool of oppression,” the judgment goes beyond correcting one order to flag a systemic misuse of a preventive statute against people who are being dealt with perfectly well under the ordinary criminal law. For a law designed to protect the public from those who evade conventional prosecution, the decision is a reminder that it cannot be turned into a shortcut to punish those already facing, or acquitted in, ordinary cases.
Case Title: Zahid Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 Others [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8680 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026