Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC

The Hindu

5 hours ago

The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law.
The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media.
'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote.
'Colourable exercise of power'
The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'.
The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'.
Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said.
'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised.
'Need solid evidence'
Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality.
'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… 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,' the top court held.
Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.