UP Gangsters Act Stillborn, Doesn't Create Any Offence; Perpetuates Violence On Unsuspecting Citizens : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, “stillborn”, holding that the legislation does not create any distinct criminal offence and cannot sustain prosecution and punishment merely on the basis of a person being labelled a “gangster”.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Court observed that the law, enacted ostensibly to curb violence and organised criminal activity, could instead operate against unsuspecting citizens. The Court said the legislation, “on the pretext of adjuring violence”, was in fact capable of “perpetuating” violence against citizen

The Court made these observations while quashing criminal proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against two advocates, observing that the Act merely defines the status of a "gangster" without creating a distinct offence, and the punishment prescribed under the Act is without any corresponding offence.

“…there can be no punishment without an offence in law. As we found, the Act of 1986 does not create a crime/offence and it merely defines the status of a person indulging in a crime, specified in the definition clause, as a 'gangster' going by the definition of 'gang' and 'gangster' provided respectively under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 2…the penal law under which the criminal proceeding is initiated should create an offence and the punishment should also be in accordance with what that law prescribes. Looking at the enactment, which is up for scrutiny, we cannot find any offence having been created.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The case concerned two advocates, namely Shiv Pratap Singh and Himanshu Srivastava, who were proceeded with under the UP Gangsters Act over a dispute regarding elections to the Bar Association, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad. An FIR was registered under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Act against them.

Aggrieved by the Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

They argued against the continuation of the proceedings under the UP Gangsters Act, as the Act does not create any independent offence, but merely defines terms such as “gang” and “gangster” and prescribes punishment for a person described as a gangster.

Finding force in their arguments, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed that the Act merely prescribes the definitions of 'gang' and 'gangsters' and does not create any distinct independent offences under the Act, unlike other penal statutes.

“The U.P. Act merely provides for a punishment insofar as involvement in any of the activities specified under sub-clause (i) to (xxv) which is already penalised under a different penal law; without creating a distinct offence under the subject Act.”, the Court said.

The Court applied the principle contained under Article 20(1) of the Constitution i.e., “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege” i.e., no crime or punishment can exist without a penal law, to note that the UP Act is a stillborn with no creation of a distinct offences and punishment, except the definition of gang and gangsters.

The Court criticised the Act for enabling trial and punishment based on a gang chart without letting the actual commission of an offence be known.

“The subject enactment, the U.P. Act not only permits detention for a period without anything more than the inclusion in a Gang Chart but also enables a trial and punishment on the basis of the very same Gang Chart, in addition to the pre-trial incarceration, but without an offence being created by the Act itself. It is akin to the English proverb: 'Give a dog a bad name and hang him.”, the Court said.

Noticing that the U.P. Act is stillborn and the proceedings initiated under it cannot survive, the Court allowed both the appeals hereinabove and the proceedings impugned in the respective appeals were quashed.

Afternote

The Court clarified that it was not deciding the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act. Instead, the decision was based on the statutory defect that the Act does not create a criminal offence.

The Bench also made clear that it had not approved the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court or conclusively rejected the constitutional challenges to the Act. Those questions, it said, remained open for consideration.

“…we take a cue from the quote of George Orwell, we extracted at the outset, to find that the enactment under scrutiny on the pretext of adjuring violence, is in fact perpetuating it on un-suspecting citizens. We make it clear that we have not gone into the aspect of constitutionality as argued before the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which were negated by that Court. We have found the Act to be stillborn, since there is no crime created under the Act and this would not in any manner affect the charges levelled under the other penal laws, which has to proceed on the lines demarcated in the CrPC and the respective penal statute, which makes the objectionable act, an offence under law. We also make it clear that we have not upheld the Gujarat Act or the Maharashtra Act referred to by us and the attempt was only to draw a distinction from these; of the creation of an offence under those Acts being totally absent in the U.P. Act. We may also not be mistaken as having approved the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and or upheld the negation of all the contentions raised against the Act, which would be left open for consideration, especially since we have only held the Act to be stillborn on the provisions as existing now.”, the Court said.

Cause Title: Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu Versus State of U.P & Ors. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 836

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

In Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu Versus State of U.P & Ors

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikash Chandra Shukla, AOR Mr. Siddharth Relan, Adv. Ms. Isha Barshiliya, Adv. Mr. Lakshya S. Pandey, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Bhawarpal Singh Jadon, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Ms. Saumya Chauhan, Adv.

In Himanshu Srivastava Versus State of U.P & Ors.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Attau Rahman Masoodi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Christopher Dsouza, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawarpal Singh Jadon, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Ms. Saumya Chauhan, Adv.