The Allahabad High Court (HC) on Saturday strongly rebuked the Uttar Pradesh government over the alleged misuse of the Goonda Act, noting that cases cropping up before the court indicate that the state government is hell bent on using the stringent law as a ‘tool of harassment.’
A Lucknow bench of the HC, comprising Justice Subhash Vidyarthi underlined that the Goonda Act is a ‘very powerful’ piece of legislation and caution must be exercised before invoking it, only in cases where such action is necessary to maintain public order.
The court made the aforementioned observations while quashing an order passed by the Gonda district magistrate declaring one Zahid Ali a ‘goonda’ (nefarious criminal) and issuing orders for his externment from the district for six months.
During this, the bench also set aside the subsequent appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, who had upheld the district magistrate’s decision.
HC questions grounds cited to declare a person as a ‘Goonda’
The district magistrate of Gonda had passed the order on May 11 this year under Section 3 of the Goonda Act, on the basis of two criminal cases and a beat information report.
One of the cases was registered in 2010, while the other made its way to the police records in 2020. However, the HC observed that Ali had already been acquitted in the 2010 case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the city on August 26, 2017.
The court noted that a criminal case in which a person has already been acquitted could not subsequently be relied upon as a ground for declaring him a ‘Goonda.’ The bench also pointed out that there was a gap of nearly six years between the 2020 criminal case and the order issued in 2026, declaring Ali a ‘Goonda.’ It ruled that no rational nexus could be established between the two.
Police report also under scrutiny
Furthermore, the HC took exception to the police report referring to the case in which Ali had already been acquitted. As per the court, this suggested that an incorrect picture of the petitioner had been painted before the district magistrate.
Thereafter, the bench observed that mere involvement in a single criminal case from 2020 could not establish that Ali was a habitual offender or that he habitually committed or abetted offences.
It then rejected 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 connection with the same. Owing to this, the court held that reliance on such material would violate the principles of natural justice.
Towards the end of the hearing, the court discovered that the divisional commissioner had treated the case in which Ali was acquitted as a pending criminal case. Indicating that the authority had failed to exercise its discretion properly.
Thus, holding that the orders passed by both the district magistrate and the divisional commissioner were legally unsustainable, the HC quashed them and allowed Ali’s petition.