Supreme Court To Examine Validity Of Gangster Acts & Laws Against Organised Crimes

The Supreme Court recently placed before a 3-judge bench a plea challenging certain provisions of the UP Gangster Act and Rules. Considering that the decision will have an impact on similar laws in States likes Gujarat, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi and Karnataka, the Court decided to hear their Advocate Generals as well.

The Court also added the Union of India as a party, considering that an argument is rasied that the Gansgter Act is repugnant to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita which defines 'organised crime'.

It also directed listing of other cases challenging vires of similar laws on organized crimes alongwith the plea.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order in Samajwadi Party leader Irfan Solanki's plea. The matter was listed for final hearing on May 21.

The plea seeks to declare Sections 2(b)(iii), 3(1), 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 along-with Rules 16 (3), 22, 35, 37 (3) and (4) and 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 as unconstitutional. It is contended that the same are violative of Articles 14, 20(2), and 21 of the Constitution.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, for UP, submitted that the outcome of the proceedings in the instant case would have a direct impact on certain laws enacted by states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Delhi. He referred to (i) Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (ii) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (iii) Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam appeared for the petitioner and referred to a compilation of orders placed before the bench on the last date by ASG Nataraj. The senior counsel questioned the relevancy of the said orders, while contending that any impression of bench hunting on the part of the petitioner was misplaced. He referred to another compilation of orders to show that similar matters were getting placed before different benches.

Hearing the parties, the bench placed the matter before a 3-judge bench. Since the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi and Karnataka were not party to the case, the Court called for the appearance of Advocate Generals of these states on the next date.

The Registry was directed to club the similar petitions, except those marked as part-heard, and tag with the present case.

It may be noted that a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, in January 2025, had decided to examine the issue whether the UP Gangsters Act was repugnant to Section 111 of the BNS. The said matter has been treated as part-heard.

In February, while hearing the present matter, CJI Surya Kant had reprimanded the Registry for listing similar matters before different benches.

Details of the present petition

The petitioner has challenged the provisions on the ground that they presume a person as “Gangster” on mere allegations “without any objective consideration” and the “presumption of innocence” which is the bedrock of a fair criminal procedure is made redundant.

He claims that the impugned provisions, though characterizing as regular offenses under the IPC/BNS, have become “draconian” under the UP Gangsters Act in the current political milieu. It is contended that the petitioner, who won the Assembly elections in 2017 and 2022, and his family members, are being targeted by the ruling dispensation with false FIRs out of political vendetta.

Further, it is contended that the Gangsters Act, a State Act, is rendered invalid in view of section 111 of the BNS, a Central Act. “Both the Gangsters Act and Section 111 of BNS dealing with Organized Crime occupy the same filed and the said section 111 is a comprehensive provision dealing with the subject matter of Organized Crime”, the plea states.

As per averments in the petition, in 2022, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences under sections 147, 436, 506, 327, 427, 386, 504, and 120B of IPC. In this regard, he was convicted by the trial court but his appeal is pending before the High Court, and he is out on bail.

Thereafter, another FIR for the same offense was lodged against him under the UP Gangsters Act, for which the trial is ongoing and the plea to quash the proceedings has been rejected by the High Court.

“The Petitioner is, thus subjected to prosecution twice for the one and the same offence because of the impugned provisions of the Gangsters Act which is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The impugned provisions of the Gangsters Act and the Gangsters Rules are also arbitrary and abridging the life and liberty of the petitioner and as such violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Some other grounds taken in the petition include:

- the Act does not prescribe any objective criteria or guiding principles for determining what constitutes “gang activity”, beyond an over-broad and inclusive definition;

- invocation of the Act has resulted in drastic procedural consequences such as prolonged detention, stringent bail conditions, and attachment of property, which are left to the uncontrolled discretion of police and district authorities;

- the Act vests unguided discretion in executive authorities, particularly the police and district administration, to determine who qualifies as a “gangster” and which activities constitute “gang activity”. Absence of statutory criteria guiding executive satisfaction renders the law vulnerable to arbitrary invocation;

- section 19(4) of the Act effectively reverses the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage, compelling the accused to establish a negative, absence of guilt, before trial;

- the UP Gangsters Act concentrates multiple coercive and adjudicatory functions in the office of the District Magistrate, an executive authority, thereby violating the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Case Title: IRFAN SOLANKI Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2026

Click here to read order