UP Goondas Act Should Not Be Misused As 'Tool Of Oppression': Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings Based On 2 Criminal Cases

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the Act is a "powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas'" and should be used "very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'".

The bench added that a person's involvement in merely 2 criminal cases, instituted years apart, does not establish that he is a "habitual offender". 

Case in brief

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Rahul alias Rahul Saroj, who challenged a February 25, 2026, order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Amethi.

The ADM had declared him a 'Goonda' based on his involvement in only two criminal cases, one instituted in 2021 and the other in 2025.

Additionally, the ADM's order relied upon two beat information reports and a prohibitive report from April 2025. The petitioner moved an appeal against this order, but the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, on May 6, 2026.

High Court's order

Referring to the statutory definition under Section 2(b) of the 1970 Act, the High Court emphasized that a person is termed as a 'goonda' if he is a habitual criminal and the word 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'.

"Habit' means persistence in doing an act, i.e., the commission of a number of similar acts. The word 'habitual' connotes some degree of frequency and continuity. Habitually requires a continuance and permanence of some tendency, something that has developed into a propensity, that is, present from day to day. Repeated, persistent and similar but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit", the bench further noted.

The Court clarified that one or two acts of the accused will not be sufficient to hold that he is habitually involved in the commission of offences referred to in the Act.

Importantly, the bench also stressed that "there must be reasonable nexus between the act of the accused and its impact on the society" and "there must not be time gap between the proceedings under this Act and the acts said to be committed by the accused", which must show a relation between the two.

Against this backdrop, Justice Vidyarthi noted that the petitioner's involvement in just two criminal cases does not establish that he is a habitual offender.

The Court added that the petitioner is already facing prosecution in the two criminal cases; he is not beyond the reach of the ordinary penal law, and there is no allegation that he poses a threat to the maintenance of public order.

The High Court also took strong exception to the district authorities relying on police beat reports to invoke the 1970 Act.

The bench categorically held that "the registration of beat reports without any complaint having been filed by any person, when no investigation follows a beat report and no prima facie satisfaction of involvement of a person in the commission of the offence is recorded, would not provide a ground for declaring a person to be a Goonda".

Noting that the 1970 Act is preventive and not punitive, and that its sole purpose is to protect citizens from habitual criminals and to secure future good behaviour, the bench observed that the Act is not intended to secure the punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence. The Court underscored this.

In view of this, concluding that the orders passed by the ADM, Amethi, and the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, were not sustainable in law, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both impugned orders.