Top News

The Supreme Court on Thursday commenced its hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was told by the petitioners that the 1986 law was arbitrary and repugnant to the central legislation.

Senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 already dealt with gangsters and organised crime which is also being dealt with the UP Gangsters Act.

He added that the state government has amended the rules pertaining to the 1986 Act and its provision of attachment of property of hardened criminals was also dealt by the BNS.

"The UP gangsters Act is repugnant to the Central legislation as the field was already occupied and the state law cannot frame rules on that aspect," Tiwari submitted.

The bench said state law was not in conflict with the central legislation and are both the same thing.

Tiwari submitted that the test of repugnancy does not require the legislation to be necessarily in conflict but if the field has already been occupied by a central legislation, the state cannot venture into it.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj and advocate Ruchira Goel, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, submitted that the contention of repugnancy was raised for the first time in the hearing and they would like to file a reply in relation to the argument.

Goel submitted that after petitioners were denied relief by various courts, they have challenged the constitutional validity of the law.

She sought some time to study the repugnancy aspect in respect to the 1986 law and file a reply.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, also appearing for one of the petitioners, supported the contention of Tiwari and said the law was not only repugnant but was arbitrary.

The top court listed the matter for hearing in March and asked the parties to file their submissions.

On November 29, 2024, the top court agreed to hear a plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

It had issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government seeking its response to the plea filed by Siraj Ahmad Khan and others. Subsequently, several other matters reached the apex court challenging the validity of the law.

The lead plea, filed through advocate Manish Kumar Gupta, challenges certain provisions of the Act, including those related to attachment of property and penalty.

It said though the two petitioners were booked under the provisions of the 1986 Act, neither a charge sheet was filed nor the trial had begun.

The petition claimed that provisions of the 1986 Act were being used as a "weapon to wreak vengeance, harass and intimidate the petitioners to settle scores of family disputes", even as the law merely concerned the activities of gangsters.

"The provisions of the UP Gangster Act, 1986, are preventive in nature and cannot be allowed to be used as punitive," it stated.

The plea further sought quashing of the FIR registered in Lucknow, booking the petitioners under the provisions of the Act.