Allahabad High Court Criticises Uttar Pradesh Government Over Misuse of Goonda Act

The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over alleged misuse of the Goonda Act in the state, observing that cases coming before it indicate that the state government appears determined to use the stringent law as a tool of harassment.

A Lucknow bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said the Goonda Act is a "very powerful" legislation and must be invoked with great caution, only in clear cases and for maintaining public order.

The court made the observations while quashing the order of the Gonda district magistrate declaring a person named Zahid Ali a "goonda" and externing him from the district for six months.

The court also set aside the appellate order passed by the divisional commissioner upholding the DM's decision.

The Gonda District Magistrate had, on May 11, passed the order under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, relying on two criminal cases and a beat information report. One of the criminal cases dated back to 2010 and the other to 2020.

The high court found that Ali had already been acquitted in the 2010 case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, on August 26, 2017. It observed that a case in which a person had already been acquitted could not subsequently be used as a ground to declare him a goonda.

The court further noted that there was a gap of nearly six years between the 2020 criminal case and the 2026 order declaring Ali a goonda. It said no rational nexus could be established between the two.

The high court also took exception to the police report mentioning the case in which Ali had already been acquitted, observing that it indicated that an incorrect picture of the petitioner had been placed before the DM.

The court said that mere involvement in a single criminal case of 2020 could not establish that Ali was a habitual offender or habitually committed or abetted offences.

The bench also refused to accept the beat information report as a valid basis for invoking the Goonda Act.

No criminal case had been registered on the basis of the information, nor had Ali been given an opportunity of hearing in relation to it. Relying on such material, the court said, would violate the principles of natural justice.

The court also found that the commissioner had treated the acquitted case as a pending case against Ali, reflecting a failure to properly exercise discretion.

Holding that the orders passed by both the DM and the commissioner were legally unsustainable, the high court quashed them and allowed Ali's petition.