SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF U.P. GANGSTERS ACT: SINGLE INCIDENT OF COMMUNAL VIOLENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE DRACONIAN STATUTE

INTRODUCTION

In a significant Judgment aimed at curbing the overreach of preventive detention laws, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [SLP (Criminal) No. 6607 of 2023, decided on 14.05.2025], allowed the appeal and quashed an FIR registered under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangsters Act”). A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta categorically held that the Gangsters Act cannot be invoked against individuals merely on the basis of their involvement in a single incident of communal violence, in the absence of cogent evidence indicating organised, habitual, or continuous criminal activity. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that statutes enacted to combat organised crime must not be applied mechanically, especially in cases lacking demonstrable patterns of coordinated criminal behaviour. The Court strongly deprecated the mechanical invocation of such stringent statutes without satisfying the foundational requirements of gang involvement or coordinated criminal conduct.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The case arose from an incident that occurred on 10th October 2022, when a communal flare-up took place in response to a social media post allegedly defaming a particular religion. The Appellants were among several individuals booked under various penal provisions for their alleged participation in the ensuing protest, which turned violent.

 

An FIR dated 11.10.2022 was registered following this incident. The Appellants were granted bail in January 2023, after the courts found no criminal antecedents and noted that the injuries sustained were of a simple nature. However, several months later, on 29.04.2023, the police prepared and approved a gang chart implicating the Appellants under the Gangsters Act, and an impugned FIR under Section 3(1) of the Act was registered on 30.04.2023.The Appellants approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court declined to intervene, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

ISSUES

1. Whether a single instance of participation in a communal protest or violence can amount to “gang activity” under the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986?
2. Whether the registration of the gang chart and FIR months after the incident, without any fresh or intervening criminal conduct, was legally sustainable?

 

LEGISLATION

The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (commonly referred to as the Gangsters Act) is a special legislation enacted to control and curb organized crime and anti-social activities in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The objective of the said Act is to prevent habitual offenders, gang members, and those involved in organized crime from disturbing public order and the criminal justice system.

 

ANALYSIS

The Court observed that the essence of the Gangsters Act lies in habitual or organised criminal conduct, and not merely in participation in an isolated or spontaneous act of violence.

 

The Court underscored that the mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing gang membership.

 

Furthermore, the Bench held that mere involvement in communal violence, regardless of its seriousness, cannot ipso facto amount to gang activity without concrete evidence of:

1. Organised and coordinated criminal behaviour
2. Hierarchical or command structure
3. Recurring or habitual engagement in anti-social activities

 

Importantly, the Hon’ble Court found that no subsequent offence or continuing conduct was alleged between the original FIR in October 2022 and the preparation of the gang chart in April 2023. The FIR under the Gangsters Act was, therefore, found to be a post facto construction, lacking in any fresh material or justifiable basis.

This sequence clearly reflects that the gang chart was a retrospective construct, intended to reframe an already investigated and prosecuted incident of communal violence as organised crime, despite the absence of any fresh evidence justifying such a grave escalation.

The Court also observed that the Appellants had already been granted bail, that the incident had not led to serious injuries or fatalities, and that the Gangsters Act was never intended to be used as a tool of escalation in cases of spontaneous protest or unrest.

 

CONCLUSION

This decision reaffirms the constitutional principle that stringent laws with far-reaching consequences must be applied sparingly and strictly in accordance with their legislative intent. The Court has drawn a clear line between habitual organised crime, which the Gangsters Act seeks to address, and spontaneous acts of violence, even if they occur in communal settings.

 

By quashing the FIR and warning against post hoc efforts to invoke such draconian statutes, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need for procedural fairness and evidence-based application of preventive laws. The ruling stands as a caution against the misuse of state power and underlines the importance of ensuring criminal law is not used to stifle dissent or amplify charges beyond their legal contours.

 

SARTHAK KALRA

SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about

various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled POCSO Law in India: Key

Provisions Every Parent Must Know | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed

at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_l0H0LGY4