Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Goonda Act Being Used As Tool Of Oppression: Allahabad HC Calls State’s Approach A 'Glaring Example’ Of Statutory Abuse
|The petitioner had challenged order of the District Magistrate, Gonda, by which he had been declared a Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order declaring a man a Goonda and externing him from Gonda district for six months, holding that his involvement in a single criminal case instituted in 2020 did not establish that he habitually committed offences so as to justify action under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held, “Although the Courts have repetitively held that the Goonda Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas': that it should be used very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'; that it should not be allowed to be misused as a tool of oppression of innocent persons and that the Goonda Act is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence, 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.”
Advocate Kunwar Bahadur Singh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Ravi Srivastava appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner had challenged order of the District Magistrate, Gonda, by which he had been declared a Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act and externed from the limits of Gonda for six months. He had also challenged the order of the Commissioner dismissing his appeal.
The District Magistrate's order had relied upon two criminal cases and a beat information report against the petitioner.
The first case, registered in 2010 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, had resulted in a charge-sheet. However, the petitioner had subsequently been acquitted on August 26, 2017 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.
The second case, registered in 2020, involved allegations under several provisions of the IPC, the Disaster Management Act and the Epidemic Diseases Act. A charge-sheet had been submitted in that case.
The High Court noted that the petitioner's acquittal in the 2010 case was undisputed.
It held, “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.”
The Court observed that after the acquittal, the petitioner was involved only in a single criminal case, arising out of the 2020 case, and was facing prosecution for that case under the ordinary penal law.
“There is no allegation that the petitioner is a threat to maintenance of public order,” the Court said.
The Court also reiterated that 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.
The Court further noted that there must be a reasonable nexus between the act of the accused and its impact on society, and that there must not be a time gap between the proceedings under the Act and the acts said to have been committed by the accused.
The High Court found that the petitioner's involvement in the solitary 2020 criminal case did not establish habitual commission of the offences contemplated under Section 2(b)(i) of the Goonda Act.
It particularly took note of the long time gap between the alleged acts in 2020 and the declaration of the petitioner as a Goonda and his externment in 2026.
“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 Court held.
The Court also took exception to the police report continuing to portray the petitioner as involved in the 2010 case despite his acquittal in 2017.
Although the petitioner had not brought the acquittal to the District Magistrate's notice when the original proceedings were conducted, the High Court observed that the police must have had knowledge of the acquittal.
The Court said that mentioning the petitioner's involvement in the 2010 case in the police report “indicates that the police has deliberately portrayed a false picture of the petitioner before the District Magistrate.”
“This indicates the Commissioner has not applied her mind to the grounds taken by the petitioner while deciding the appeal,” the Court said, holding that the appellate order suffered from the “vice of non-application of mind” and was therefore unsustainable in law.
The High Court further held that the beat information report could not be relied upon to declare the petitioner a Goonda.
The Court noted that no case had been registered on the basis of the beat information report and that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing in furtherance of the report.
“Any inquiry conducted on the basis of a beat information report without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected person” could not be used as a ground to declare him a Goonda, the Court held, as it would violate the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the High Court quashed both orders.
Cause Title: Zahid Ali v. State Of U.P. & Ors., [2026:AHC-LKO-63435]