UP Govt Persistent In Using 'Goondas Act' As A 'Tool Of Oppression': Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government's use of the Goondas Act, observing that numerous cases before the Court indicate that the State is "persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression". A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while quashing orders passed against a Gonda resident, declaring him a...
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government's use of the Goondas Act, observing that numerous cases before the Court indicate that the State is "persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression".
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while quashing orders passed against a Gonda resident, declaring him a 'Goonda' under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and externing him from Gonda district for six months.
The Court noted that it has repeatedly held that the Goonda Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of 'Goondas', but that it should be used "very sparingly" in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'.
Justice Vidyarthi reiterated that the legislation should not be allowed to be "misused as a tool of oppression of innocent persons" and is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence.
Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus:
"…numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression, and the present case is a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute".
Case in brief
The petitioner (Zahid Ali) had challenged an order dated May 11, 2026, passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda, under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, declaring him a Goonda and externing him from the limits of Gonda district for 6 months.
He also challenged the order dated August 12, 2026, by which the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, dismissed his appeal under Section 6 of the Goonda Act.
The District Magistrate's order relied upon the petitioner's alleged involvement in 2 criminal cases and a beat information report. One case was related to 2010, while the other was registered in 2020.
The petitioner had, however, already been acquitted in the 2010 criminal case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, through a judgment dated August 26, 2017.
High Court's observations
In view of this, the High Court categorically remarked thus:
"Involvement of a person in a case instituted against him cannot be made a ground to declare him a Goonda after acquittal of the person in that case".
The Court further noted that there was no allegation that the petitioner posed a threat to public order. Following his acquittal in the 2010 case, he was facing prosecution in only one criminal case arising from a 2020 FIR.
The Court also found a significant time gap between the alleged acts in 2020 and the petitioner's declaration as a Goonda and externment in 2026. It held that there was "no reasonable nexus" between the registration of the 2020 criminal case and his declaration as a Goonda six years later.
The High Court noted that although the District Magistrate's order referred to the petitioner's involvement in the 2010 case, the police ought to have been aware that he had already been acquitted in that case in 2017.
The Court observed that the continued mention of the acquitted case in the police report "indicates that the police has deliberately portrayed a false picture of the petitioner before the District Magistrate".
The bench also took exception to the appellate order. Although the Commissioner had been informed that the petitioner had been acquitted in the 2010 case, the Commissioner nevertheless recorded that he was involved in two criminal cases, including the case in which he had already been acquitted.
The High Court held that this showed a non-application of mind, which rendered the appellate order unsustainable in law.
The Court additionally held that the petitioner's involvement in the solitary 2020 criminal case could not establish that he "habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission" of offences contemplated under Section 2(b)(i) of the Goonda Act.
The High Court also rejected reliance on the beat information report. Although the District Magistrate and Commissioner recorded that the beat information had been verified as true, the Court noted that no case had been registered on the basis of the report and the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing in relation to it.
It held that an inquiry based on such a report, without giving the affected person an opportunity of hearing, “cannot be used as a ground to declare him to be a Goonda, as it would violate the principles of natural justice”.
Ultimately, the High Court held that both the District Magistrate's order declaring the petitioner a Goonda and ordering his six-month externment, as well as the Commissioner's appellate order, were “unsustainable in law.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed and both orders were quashed.
Case Title - Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698