The Supreme Court on Wednesday, while terming the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act as ‘draconian,’ allowed an application challenging proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act.
The observations were made by the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, while admitting an application filed by a man challenging an Allahabad High Court order of May 2023. which dismissed his plea seeking to set aside proceedings against him pending before a district court in Kasganj in a case registered under the Act.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner said he was booked in the case under the provisions of the 1986 Act on allegations of illegal mining in the river Ganga. He further said that the petitioner was booked twice for the same allegation.
The counsel appearing for the state referred to the provisions of the 1986 Act.
Noting that a separate application challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act was pending adjudication, the bench said it would consider both the petitions.
Before the High Court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in the case lodged under the Gangsters Act. His counsel had claimed before the High Court that the case has been lodged under the Gangsters Act only on the basis of another case in which the petitioner has not been named.
Earlier on November 29, the Ape Court had issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on another petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel R Basant had contended that the Act allowed police to be the complainant, prosecutor & adjudicator, and go about attaching the entire property of an accused.
The lawyer said another public interest litigation on a similar issue was filed in the Apex Court 2022, which was yet to be heard in detail.
Filed through Advocate Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, the PIL challenged Sections 3, 12 and 14 of the Act as well as Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of the 2021 Rules, dealing with the registration of cases, attachment of properties, investigation and trial.
As per Rule 22, a single act or omission would be sufficient to register a first information report (FIR) under the Act, thereby rendering the criminal history of the accused irrelevant.
The petition submitted that this was violative of fundamental rights, adding that re-registration of an FIR under the Act against a person who has committed a crime and against whom an FIR has already been registered, amounted to double jeopardy and violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
The post appeared first on .
The observations were made by the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, while admitting an application filed by a man challenging an Allahabad High Court order of May 2023. which dismissed his plea seeking to set aside proceedings against him pending before a district court in Kasganj in a case registered under the Act.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner said he was booked in the case under the provisions of the 1986 Act on allegations of illegal mining in the river Ganga. He further said that the petitioner was booked twice for the same allegation.
The counsel appearing for the state referred to the provisions of the 1986 Act.
Noting that a separate application challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act was pending adjudication, the bench said it would consider both the petitions.
Before the High Court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in the case lodged under the Gangsters Act. His counsel had claimed before the High Court that the case has been lodged under the Gangsters Act only on the basis of another case in which the petitioner has not been named.
Earlier on November 29, the Ape Court had issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on another petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel R Basant had contended that the Act allowed police to be the complainant, prosecutor & adjudicator, and go about attaching the entire property of an accused.
The lawyer said another public interest litigation on a similar issue was filed in the Apex Court 2022, which was yet to be heard in detail.
Filed through Advocate Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, the PIL challenged Sections 3, 12 and 14 of the Act as well as Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of the 2021 Rules, dealing with the registration of cases, attachment of properties, investigation and trial.
As per Rule 22, a single act or omission would be sufficient to register a first information report (FIR) under the Act, thereby rendering the criminal history of the accused irrelevant.
The petition submitted that this was violative of fundamental rights, adding that re-registration of an FIR under the Act against a person who has committed a crime and against whom an FIR has already been registered, amounted to double jeopardy and violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
The post appeared first on .