The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh Government on the Supreme Court's August 2026 observations that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is 'stillborn'.

A Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh also stayed criminal proceedings against an accused booked under the Act while noting that the Supreme Court had held that the Act does not create any crime or offence but merely defines the status of a person as a 'gangster'.

Taking into account the Apex Court's reasoning in the case, the High Court observed that the matter "requires consideration".

Briefly put, the High Court was hearing a plea filed by Bhimsen Singh alias Raju, who challenged the proceedings initiated against him under the Gangsters Act.He specifically relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu Versus State of U.P & Ors.

In that judgment, the Supreme Court examined the scheme of the UP Gangsters Act and held that the definition of 'gang' and 'gangster' under Section 2, read with the penal provision under Section 3, does not create a distinct offence of being a member of a gang or acting as a gangster.

The Supreme Court had emphasized that the creation of an offence and the prescription of penal consequences are essentially legislative functions and cannot be left to subordinate legislation.

"The creation of crime, or to make an act or omission subject to penal consequences as an offence, is essentially a legislative function and it cannot be thrown away and left to sprout in the thickets of subordinate legislation", the Supreme Court had observed.

The Supreme Court had also described the Act as 'stillborn' while examining the absence of a distinct offence under the legislation. It held that proceedings initiated under the Act could not survive in the cases before it.

The Top Court had, however, clarified that it was not examining the constitutional validity of the Act, which remains pending consideration before it in a separate matter.

Now, against the backdrop of the Apex Court's judgment, the counsel for the applicant argued before the HC that the Gangsters Act merely defines a gang and a gangster, while the alleged criminal activities forming the basis of the gang chart are already covered by separate offences under other laws.

It was argued that initiating proceedings under the Act in such circumstances violates the principle that no person can be punished without an offence being created by law.

The State opposed the plea. The Additional Government Advocate submitted that the applicant could move a discharge application before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

After considering the submissions and the Supreme Court's ruling, the High Court observed thus:

"...as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh @ Chinu (supra) proceedings under the provisions of Gangster Act has been quashed on the principles of nulla poena sine lege (no crime or punishment can be addressed without penal law) which is defined in Article 20 of the Constitution of India and it was also observed that Act of 1986 does not create a crime/offence as it merely defined the status of a person indulging in a crime specified in the definition clause as 'Gangster' giving by the definition of Gang and Gangster and also observed that the preparation of the gang chart on the basis of involvement shows in a different crime as specified under Clauses of Section 2(b) determines the status of a person as gangster, for which punishment is prescribed without an offence being created, therefore, matter requires consideration".

The Court further directed the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a counter-affidavit specifically addressing the observations made by the Supreme Court.

The State has been granted 3 weeks to file its response. The applicant may file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

The Court also directed the Additional Government Advocate to apprise it of the status of the Supreme Court proceedings in Irfan Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which the constitutional validity of the Gangsters Act is under challenge.

"Till then, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed", the High Court ordered.

The matter has been directed to be listed immediately after completion of the pleadings.