Law Shouldn't Be Used For Harassment: SC On Invoking Stringent Laws Like UP Gangsters Act

New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently drew public attention to the routine invocation of stringent extraordinary legislation like the UP Gangsters Act (“Act”), noting that the law should not be used as a tool for harassment. The court said that such laws should only be used judiciously based on relevant considerations.

“The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,” Live Law quoted the apex court said, adding that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. The court said such acts should not be applied to individuals solely for their involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity, in the absence of evidence indicating prior or ongoing coordinated criminal conduct.

Read Also: “Will Order Reconstruction At Your Cost”: Supreme Court To UP For Demolishing Houses

Quashing an FIR filed in 2023, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation. Questioning the timing of the RIR, the court said that the prosecution had failed to establish any evidence of the appellants’ involvement in continuous organised criminal activity since the initial FIR registered under the IPC.

The court pointed out that because the accused were involved in a single incident of mob clash, with no evidence of their continuous involvement in anti-social activities, the Act cannot be applied to them, highlighting that it cannot be invoked to deprive the person of its life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

While hearing the case, the court stated that any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. This principle, the court explained, is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence and forms the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Read Also: Unabated Bulldozer Actions: UP Government, Nagpur Authorities Face Courts’ Heat Over Demolitions

“It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality,” the top court said, adding that the materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity

The court further said that when a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.