Observing that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act is prone to misuse, the Supreme Court has held that the 1986 law is “stillborn” as a person cannot be punished merely based on being labelled a “gangster”. File
| Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
Observing that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act is prone to misuse, the Supreme Court has held that the 1986 law is “stillborn” as a person cannot be punished merely based on being labelled a “gangster”.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran said the law, which was enacted to stop violence and organised criminal activity, could instead be used against unsuspecting citizens.
The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act is a special state law enacted to target, control and punish organised crime syndicates, criminal gangs and habitual anti-social elements.
A “stillborn” law is a legal term used to describe a statute as invalid, void or legally dead from its inception because it fails to define a valid legal offence.
The top court said the law was capable of “perpetuating” violence against citizens “on the pretext of adjuring violence”.
“After defining gang, which includes commission of the offences listed under sub-clauses (i) to (xxv), and defining gangster as a member or leader or organiser of a gang, the punishment is prescribed for a gangster without an offence being created by statute, which makes the penal act stillborn,” the Bench said.
Quoting English author George Orwell, the top court said, “Those who abjure violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.” The apex court said the menace of criminal gangs is to be curbed, but the end does not justify the means, especially in enacting a penal law that interferes with the liberty of citizens.
“The provisions of the Act could lead to a detention of the accused without trial for long, which is akin to a statute enjoining preventive detention. Though preventive detention has been held to be permissible even in the teeth of Article 21, the same is hedged with safeguards, which are held to be sacrosanct and even a minor procedural violation would entail release of the detenu…
“However compelling and threatening the social menace, any penal enactment to curb that, it cannot lead to arbitrary and capricious actions against the one alleged with the commission of an offence,” the Bench said.
The apex court passed the judgement while quashing a criminal case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against two advocates.
Published – August 21, 2026 01:04 pm IST
