Supreme Court strikes down UP Gangster Act as unconstitutional and legally "stillborn"

The Supreme Court has declared the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as "stillborn" on the grounds that it does not create any distinct or independent criminal offence. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment on Thursday, quashing criminal proceedings under the Act against two advocates, Shiv Pratap Singh and Himanshu Srivastava.

The case originated when advocate Mayank Srivastava, elder brother of Himanshu Srivastava who practices in Ghaziabad court, filed a contempt petition in the High Court against the then Circle Officer of Loni. In apparent retaliation, Loni Border police station registered an FIR against both brothers under the UP Gangster Act. After obtaining a stay on arrest, they challenged the chargesheet in the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, represented by retired Justice Atau Rahman Masoodi.

The court's primary legal finding centers on the fact that while the Act defines "gang" and "gangster," it prescribes punishment without establishing any new criminal offence beyond existing penal laws. The bench invoked Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which embodies the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, meaning no crime or punishment without law. The court criticized the law's mechanism of branding someone a "gangster" merely based on a "gang chart" without defining a specific offence.

Referencing George Orwell, the bench observed that under the pretext of preventing violence, this law actually enables and perpetuates violence against ordinary citizens. The court compared the Act to the English saying "give a dog a bad name and hang him," questioning how prosecution and punishment could be permitted solely on the basis of a name appearing on a gang chart.

The Supreme Court clarified that it has not ruled on the overall constitutional validity of the Act, leaving larger questions open for future consideration. The judgment does not affect other criminal charges under regular penal codes against the accused, which will continue as per law. The bench distinguished the UP Act from similar legislation in Gujarat and Maharashtra, noting those states' laws do create distinct offences, which is entirely absent in the Uttar Pradesh statute.