9 hours ago
Supreme Court warns governments against invoking stringent laws as tool of harassment
Representative Image
NEW DELHI: Cautioning govts not to invoke stringent laws like UP Gangsters Act "as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play", Supreme Court has quashed an FIR lodged under the Act against people taking part in a demonstration after a communal flare-up arising out of a controversial social media post targeting a religious group, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.
It said the accused were arrested and booked under various provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop owned by a person who had put an "incendiary" social media post.
Supreme Court said the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and there was no need for lodging a second FIR against them by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. Noting the stringent law was invoked 13 days after an accused's daughter-in- law filed nomination for chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur (UP), a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "This timing lends credence to their contention the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous considerations.
"
Allowing the plea of Lal Mohammad and other accused, the bench said the Act was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates, and invoking the law "based on a single incident of communal violence... is a significant departure from its legislative purpose". It said mere involvement of the accused in a demonstration after the communal flare-up, however serious, did not transform the participants into a 'gang' without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless
medalmerit
Learn More
Undo
"The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the state has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the state cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play," said Justice Mehta, who penned the judgment.
"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 materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. 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."
