The Supreme Court has requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The petition highlights concerns about excessive police powers, potential misuse, and violations of fundamental rights. Similar issues raised in a pending Public Interest Litigation are also under review.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Friday, sought the Uttar Pradesh government’s response to a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The petition, Siraj Ahmad Khan and Anr v. State of UP and Ors, was taken up by a Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which issued notice to the State after hearing Senior Counsel R Basant.
Senior Counsel R Basant, representing the petitioner, argued that the Act grants excessive powers to the police, allowing them to act as the complainant, prosecutor, and adjudicator. This raises concerns over due process and potential misuse, especially regarding property attachment of the accused under the Act.
The petition also highlights that Section 3, 12, and 14 of the Act, along with several provisions of the 2021 Rules—such as Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3), and 40—are violative of fundamental rights.
Issues with the Act and Rules
- Rule 22: Allows the registration of a case based on a single act or omission, rendering the criminal history of the accused irrelevant. The petition contends this violates the accused’s fundamental rights under the Constitution.
- Double Jeopardy: The re-registration of an FIR under this Act for the same crime already registered amounts to double jeopardy, which violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
The Court noted that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2022, challenging the same Act, is already under consideration. Filed by advocate Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, this PIL raises similar issues, including provisions related to case registration, property attachment, investigation, and trials under the Act.
Basant emphasized that while the PIL has yet to be heard in detail, its arguments underscore the potential misuse of the Act, which, according to the petitioner, breaches constitutional safeguards.
In addition to Senior Counsel Basant, advocates Manish Kumar Gupta, Mohd Faris, Aman Kumar, Raunak Arora, Akash Rajeev, and Indra Lal appeared for the petitioner. Their collective representation aims to bring judicial scrutiny to provisions they argue are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek the Uttar Pradesh government’s response marks the first step in addressing significant legal and constitutional concerns about the UP Gangsters Act. As debates over the balance between law enforcement powers and individual rights intensify, the case could lead to crucial judicial clarifications on the Act’s scope and application.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE