According to the petition, the police arbitrarily apply the provisions of the Gangsters Act to anybody they wish to target.
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangsters Act) is being challenged in court under the public interest litigation (PIL) Md. Anas Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which questions the law’s constitutionality.
The PIL, which was submitted through Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, challenges Sections 3, 12, and 14 of the Act as well as Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3), and 40 of the 2021 Rules, which deal with the registration of cases, the attachment of property, the investigation process, and the courtroom process.
A violation of fundamental rights has been cited in relation to Rule 22, which states that only one act or omission is required to record a first information report (FIR) under the Act and that the criminal history of the accused is irrelevant.
The argument makes the re-registration of a FIR under the Act against a person who has committed a crime and against whom a FIR has already been recorded a violation of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution since it amounts to double jeopardy.
The Gangsters Act and Rules do not classify accused individuals. Because the police arbitrarily utilise the laws against anybody they choose, it is being abused, according to the petition.
The petitioner notes that the District Magistrate is both a prosecutor under the Gangsters Act and an adjudicator under the Gangsters Rules, which is blatantly against the principles of natural justice when it comes to attaching the property of those who violate the Act.
It has also been contested that the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police has the option to determine whether the accused or a member of his family can acquire property.
The Act’s authorization for police to hold suspects on remand for 60 days is questioned as being excessive.
The special court hearing cases under the Act will take precedence over the trial in any other case or the base case, according to Section 12 of the Act. The plea contends that as a result, someone who might be convicted in another instance could still face legal action under the Gangsters Act.
The plea further argues that the Act utterly fails to fulfil Article 14’s core principle and its associated standards of non-arbitrariness.
The argument continued that the Act violates the concept of reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia since it gives the authorities the discretionary freedom to invoke its provisions as they see fit.
“The classical twin tests of classification under Article 14 developed by this Hon’ble Court in Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75), which demand that I there should be a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia; and (11) this classification should have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, are violated by the authorities’ arbitrary power to classify on their own satisfaction. The Act’s classification must be grounded on comprehensible differences.”
Written By: Lakshman Singh, B.B.A LL.B (Hons.), Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Lucknow
0 Comments