This observation came from a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan while hearing a plea challenging a May 2023 Allahabad High Court decision that dismissed an application to quash proceedings under the Act pending in a Kasganj district court.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (4 Dec) described the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act as appearing “draconian.”
This observation came from a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan while hearing a plea challenging a May 2023 Allahabad High Court decision that dismissed an application to quash proceedings under the Act pending in a Kasganj district court.
“This Act appears to be draconian,” the apex court remarked, admitting the appeal and adding, “We will consider it.”
Previously, in November, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government regarding this plea and issued an interim order preventing coercive actions against the petitioner under the Gangsters Act.
On Wednesday, the petitioner’s counsel argued that his client faced allegations of illegal mining in the Ganga river and had been booked twice for the same offense.
The state’s counsel referenced the provisions of the 1986 Act, to which the bench responded, “It requires consideration.”
The bench also noted that a separate plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act was already pending before the court.
Earlier, the petitioner’s lawyer had told the high court that his client was falsely implicated under the Gangsters Act, based solely on another case where he was not even named.
On November 29, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a separate petition contesting the validity of some sections of the Act and requested the Uttar Pradesh government’s response.
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act
Enacted in 1986, this legislation aims to curb organized crime and anti-social activities in Uttar Pradesh. It provides strict legal measures to target individuals and groups involved in organized crime, extortion, illegal mining, and other activities perceived as threats to public order. The Act has faced criticism for its broad definitions and potential misuse, with concerns about civil liberties violations.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
