The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order passed under Sections 3,4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, while observing that the legislation is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas', which should not be misused as a tool of oppression of innocent persons.

The High Court was considering a writ petition whereby the petitioner laid challenge to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Amethi in a case registered under Sections 3,4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (Goonda Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said, “The legislation is preventive and not punitive. Its sole purpose is to protect the citizens from the habitual criminals and to secure future good behaviour and not to punish the innocent persons.”

“The Goonda Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas', it should be used very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'. The Act should not be allowed to be misused as a tool of oppression of innocent persons”, it added.

Advocate Nisha Srivastava represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was declared to be a 'Goonda' based on his involvement in two criminal cases. The impugned order also mentioned two beat information reports and a prohibitory report. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an Appeal under Section 6 of the Goonda Act, which was dismissed by means of an order passed by the Commissioner and the validity of the appellate order was also challenged in the petition.

Reasoning

Referring to its various decisions, the High Court explained the following aspects:

  • A person is termed as a 'goonda' if he is a habitual criminal. The word 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. 'Habit' means persistence in doing an act, i.e., the commission of a number of similar acts. The word 'habitual' connotes some degree of frequency and continuity. Habitually requires a continuance and permanence of some tendency, something that has developed into a propensity, that is, present from day to day. Repeated, persistent and similar but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.
  • One or two acts of the accused will not be sufficient to hold that he is habitually involved in commission of offences referred to in the Act.
  • There must be reasonable nexus between the act of the accused and its impact on the society. There must not be time gap between the proceedings under this Act and the acts said to be committed by the accused must show relation between the two.
  • It must be evident from the facts that by his confirmed habit, the petitioner is sure to commit more offences, if he is not externed.
  • The Goonda Act is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence.
  • The intention of the Act is to afford protection to the public against hardened or habitual criminals or bullies or dangerous or desperate class who menace the security of a person or of property. The order of externment under the Act is required to be passed against persons who cannot readily be brought under the ordinary penal law and who cannot be convicted for the offences said to have been committed by them.

The Bench noted that the involvement of the petitioner in two criminal cases - one instituted in the year 2021 and the other instituted in the year 2025, did not establish that he was a habitual offender. Considering that there was no allegation that the petitioner was a threat to the maintenance of public order, the Bench noted, “The learned Additional District Magistrate has declared the petitioner to be 'a Goonda' merely on the basis of his involvement in two cases.”

As per the Bench, there would be no ground for declaring a person to be a Goonda when no investigation follows a beat report, no prima facie satisfaction of involvement of a person in the commission of the offence is recorded in furtherance of the beat reports, and the person would not have an opportunity to rebut the allegations made in the beat reports.

The Bench thus allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate.

Cause Title: Rahul @ Rahul Saroj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:44291)

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Subhash Vidyarthi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.