The Allahabad High Court has directed the State government to formulate uniform guidelines by October 31, in order to prevent any potential misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (Goondas Act) by the authorities.
A Bench comprising Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi issued this order after observing the widespread misapplication of the Goondas Act and the lack of consistency among different districts in its enforcement. This lack of uniformity has resulted in an unnecessary backlog of cases and challenges to notices issued under this Act, the Court noted.
The Court expressed strong displeasure at the “routine pasting” of provisions from the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, in a casual and arbitrary manner.
The Court emphasized that every citizen possesses a fundamental right to live peacefully and engage in their profession. Therefore, the executive authorities must exercise extreme caution and thoroughly verify an individual’s background before issuing notices under the Goondas Act. The Court directed that the order should be well-reasoned and based on the application of independent judicial thought by the authority.
“Henceforth, it is expected that the authorities would specify the ‘general nature of particular allegations against the proposed Goonda,’ consider his public image, social and family background, and then only pass a well-reasoned order. This should not be based on a prescribed proforma when issuing a show cause notice, and subsequently, a well-reasoned order of externment (if required).”
The Court’s attention was on a writ petition by Govardhan, challenging a show cause notice issued under the UP Goondas Act. The notice cited a single criminal case and a beat report against him. Even in this solitary criminal case, Govardhan had been granted anticipatory bail until trial conclusion. The Court criticized the Goondas Act’s indiscreet application, based solely on one criminal case and authorities’ discretion.
“We find that this notice is nothing but a clear abuse of the power vested in the executive authorities of the district,” the Court emphasized.
During the hearing, the government advocate claimed that there were additional cases against Govardhan. However, the judges promptly rejected this contention.
“Suddenly, the learned A.G.A. woke up and revealed that, in addition to the two cases mentioned in the impugned notices, the petitioner has two more cases. The Court cannot take judicial notice of those additional cases; we cannot allow this hide-and-seek practice with the proposed ‘Goonda,’ i.e., the petitioner.”
The Court concluded that the notice was issued without proper consideration and quashed it. Furthermore, it directed the State to establish consistent guidelines for the application of the Goondas Act by October 31.
