Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta quashed the FIR under the UP Gangsters Act, holding that the Act cannot be invoked for a solitary incident without evidence of continuous organised criminal activity, as it violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors.    (2025) Case? 

• The appellants were members of a political party in Uttar Pradesh, with Appellant No. 1 being a former two-time elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat and Appellant No. 2 being his son.  
• On 10th October 2022, one Rikki Modanwal made a social media post containing allegedly defamatory language towards a particular religion. In response, several believers of that religion, including the appellants, assembled outside Rikki Modanwal's shop and raised vociferous protests the social media post.  
• The protests escalated into violence and acts of vandalism between two different religious groups. 
• Multiple FIRs were registered on 11th October 2022 against the people involved in the incidents, including FIR bearing CC No. 294 of 2022 against 41 accused persons including the appellants for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC).  
• A second FIR bearing CC No. 296 of 2022 was also registered on the same date against members of both religious groups under multiple sections of the IPC and other Acts.  
• Following investigation into these FIRs, the appellants were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Nearly six months later, on 30th April 2023, Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi filed the impugned FIR against the appellants and 39 other accused under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.  
• The timing of this FIR was significant as it came just 13 days after Appellant No. 1's daughter-in-law filed her nomination for Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on 17th April 2023.  
• The appellants had anticipated this development and filed a representation on 25th April 2023 to the UP-State Election Commission raising concerns about potential misuse of the UP Gangsters Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that extraordinary penal provisions like the UP Gangsters Act must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality, with materials establishing a reasonable nexus between the accused and alleged criminal activity. 
• The Court emphasized that when a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.  
• The bench noted that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions is invoked, and such power cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play. 
• The Court found that the impugned FIR merely referred to an isolated incident without any subsequent criminal acts or pattern of organized criminal behavior, failing to establish the sustained criminal enterprise that the UP Gangsters Act is designed to address.  
• The timing of the FIR registration, occurring just 13 days after the political nomination and following the appellants' anticipatory representation, lent credence to their contention that the Act may have been weaponized for extraneous considerations.  
• The Court determined that applying the UP Gangsters Act to appellants based on a single incident of communal violence represented a significant departure from the Act's legislative purpose of combating organized gang-based crime. 
• The bench concluded that compelling the appellants to undergo another prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act for the same set of allegations would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and result in a gross miscarriage of justice.  
• The Court also referenced recent guidelines framed by the UP Government emphasizing rigorous assessment of gravity of underlying offences and established patterns of criminal activity, which were not met in the present case. 

What is the Overview of the UP Gangsters Act? 

• This Act establishes a comprehensive legal framework to combat organized crime by defining stringent punishments for gangsters and corrupt public servants who assist them. 
• Section 3 prescribes imprisonment of 2-10 years and fines for gangsters, with enhanced punishment of 3-10 years for offenses against public servants or their families, while public servants who illegally aid gangsters face 3-10 years imprisonment and fines. 
• Section 4 introduces special evidence rules allowing courts to consider the accused's criminal history, presume unexplained wealth was acquired through gangster activities, automatically presume kidnapping was for ransom, and conduct trials in the accused's absence when necessary. 
• Sections 5-13 establish Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction over gangster offenses, appointing qualified judges and prosecutors, allowing flexible venue changes for witness protection, ensuring trial precedence over other cases, and permitting simultaneous trial of related offenses. 
• Sections 14-17 create a robust property forfeiture mechanism where District Magistrates can attach suspected gangster-acquired property, claimants have three months to challenge attachments by proving legitimate acquisition, and courts conduct detailed inquiries with the burden of proof on claimants to establish the property's lawful origin, ultimately ordering release, confiscation, or other appropriate disposal.  
• Section 11 mandates in-camera proceedings to protect witness identities and addresses, with violations punishable by up to one year imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine.  
• Section 19 establishes strict bail restrictions requiring Public Prosecutor consultation and court satisfaction that the accused is unlikely to be guilty and won't commit offenses while on bail, while extending remand periods from the standard 15-90 days to 60 days-1 year, making all offenses under this Act cognizable and non-bailable with enhanced procedural safeguards.