New Delhi: Behind the Yogi Adityanath government’s crackdown on gangsters and mafia in the state of Uttar Pradesh is a 37-year-old law – the 24 section long Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, and the recently notified Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) ) Rule 2021.
Gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari was convicted under this law by a special MP/MLA court on Saturday and sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of Rs 5 lakh. The case was registered in 2007 On the basis of his alleged involvement in the 1996 kidnapping case of coal baron and Vishwa Hindu Parishad functionary Nandkishore Rungta and the 2005 murder of BJP MLA Krishnanand Rai. However, while this case Was Ansari could not be caught in the Rungta murder case because it was pending. He too liberated by a special CBI court in Delhi in July 2019 in the Krishnanand Rai case.
Ansari was in December last year Sentenced for a prison term of 10 years under gangster act By MP/MLA Court in Ghazipur.
According to media reportsUP police registered 2,276 cases in 2019 under the 1986 law, up from 1,910 in 2018 and 1,837 in 2017. “faulty gang-charts”, and characterized police officers acting in “eccentric manner”.
What does the law say and why is it controversial? ThePrint explains.
Who is the ‘Gangster’?
Section 2(b) defines a “gang” as a group of persons acting individually or collectively, who indulge in “anti-social activities” which, by means of violence or intimidation, disturb public order. to breach or to obtain any unfair advantage. The provision also includes a list of such anti-social activities. This includes crimes such as murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, extortion, criminal intimidation and cheating. It also includes “causing public panic, alarm or panic”. And Inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony,
A “gangster” is defined as a member or leader or organizer of a gang, and includes any person who assists the gang in anti-social activities, as listed under the law.
In this, there is a provision of imprisonment of two to ten years along with a fine of at least Rs 5,000 for violating the law. However, if a gangster commits the offense against a public servant or a family member of a public servant, the minimum jail term increases to three years. If a public servant provides “illegal aid or support” to a gangster, the public servant can be sentenced to three to ten years in prison.
was the law City: Because “gangsterism and anti-social activities were on the rise in the state, posing a threat to the lives and properties of citizens”, and “with a view to break the gangs by punishing the gangsters and root out their conspiratorial designs”.
Read also: How did Atiq-Ashraf die in police custody? SC asks UP government to file ‘comprehensive affidavit’
FIR in same case
However, it is Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules 2021 that comprise the flesh and substance of the law.
According to these rules, for initiating proceedings under the 1986 Act, the concerned Station House Officer or Station House Officer or Inspector has to prepare a gang-chart mentioning the details of the criminal activities of the gang. The gang-chart is submitted to the District Police Chief after obtaining a clear recommendation from the Additional Superintendent of Police. The District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police has to approve the gang-chart, after ensuring that satisfactory grounds exist for initiating action.
The rules define “base cases” as those cases on the basis of which a gang-chart has been prepared for the purpose of taking action against gangs under the 1986 Act. The rules state that the presence of the accused at the scene of the incident or their direct participation in the incident is not necessary.
He also says that “criminal history is not (mandatory)” and an FIR can be registered even on the basis of a case under the Act. This is in line with a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in April last year, which stated that “even a An offense committed by a ‘gang’ is sufficient to make the Gangster Act applicable to such members of the ‘gang’”, and the Act can be invoked as an offense or even with an FIR or a charge sheet.
However, the rules claim that the gang-chart will not be approved without completion of the Aadhaar case investigation. Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court has also ruled that no one can be charged with the Gangster Act without filing a charge sheet in the Aadhaar case. The attested copy of the charge sheet and recovery memo should also be attached to the gang chart.
The rules also provide for three-tier committees – at the district level, divisional level and state level – for regular monitoring and review of the proceedings under the Act.
‘Arbitrary authority to the executive’
A petition was filed in December last year challenging the constitutional validity of the 1986 law, alleging that several of its provisions and the rules framed thereunder violate the Constitution of India. It alleged that “the Act gives arbitrary power to the police/executive to invoke the Gangster Act against any person at his satisfaction without any proper classification”.
It also referred to Rule 57 of the 2021 Rules, which asserts that trial under the Gangsters Act shall have “precedence over trial of base cases under any other Act”. This, it said, means that a person may be acquitted under the Aadhaar case, but may be proceeded against under the Gangster Act.
The petition also challenges Section 14 of the Act, which deals with attachment of property. The rules state that if the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offense under this Act, the Magistrate may order attachment of such property.
This provision has been at the forefront of the state government’s crackdown on mafias and organized crime. According to media reports since August last year, the Uttar Pradesh Police has attached and demolished properties worth over Rs 3,190 crore, mostly under the provisions of the Gangsters Act, since 2018.
While this petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in December 2022, this was not the first time that the provisions of the law were challenged. The Allahabad High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act in 1987. In 2010, gangster Dharmendra Kirthal, who had allegedly committed over 30 murders, challenged the constitutional validity of several provisions of the law in 2010.
Through a judgment delivered in August 2013, the Supreme Court specifically noted and upheld the validity of Section 12 of the Act, which gives priority to trial under the Gangster Act over trial against the accused in any other court. gives.
Guidelines to prevent ‘abuse’
The courts have commented on the ‘misuse’ of the law several times in the past. For example, in a judgment passed in March 2021, the Allahabad High Court took serious note of “incomplete and defective gang-charts” filed under the 1986 Act, stating,Giving ample room for miscarriage of justice, consequently, the accused-applicant gets bail easily, In January this year, news reports claimed that a 53-year-old woman, Alisha QueenMany have been bedridden for the last 20 years due to health disorders, a case was registered under the Gangster Act. After this, an inquiry into the action was set up.
Then, in August 2021, one Aaliya approached the Allahabad High Court with a bail application. A Gangster Act case was registered against him on the basis of two counts – one under Indian Penal Code section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) and the other under IPC section 489B (forgery or counterfeit currency or bank notes). using ) under .
Seeking the reply of the District Magistrate of Kanpur Nagar, the court had then said, “It is very strange that a woman who has two criminal cases registered against her, has been slapped with the Gangster Act. This Court has experienced in many cases that sometimes police officers act in a whimsical manner, such is the present instance in which the act of the police officers smacks of prejudice and malice.
In November 2020, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court also took note of the “misuse” of the 1986 law. The court was hearing a bail application filed by one Manoj Kumar Nirmal, against whom a case was registered under the Gangster Act.
Two cases have been registered against him under IPC sections 457 (trespassing, trespassing or trespassing into house), 380 (house burglary) and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) at the same police station of Rae Bareilly in the gang-chart. is mentioned. , It was noted that charge sheets in both the Aadhaar cases were filed in 2019 and Nirmal was granted bail in both the cases.
The court granted him bail under the 1986 law, but asserted that “it has been observed that in trivial cases, the provisions of the Gangster Act are being invoked and thus, are being misused by the police”. . It was observed, “In many cases on the basis of single recovery of alleged stolen goods/money, the accused are implicated in multiple cases and charge sheets are filed in a short span of few days.”
The court had then directed the Director General of Police of UP to prepare guidelines to prevent misuse of the provisions of the Act. It warned the state to take matters into its own hands, saying, “If corrective steps are not taken to prevent misuse of the provisions of the Gangsters Act, this court would be required to pass a detailed judgment and order so that the provisions may be violated. The Gangster Act is not being misused.
In January 2021, the court was informed by the UP police that on 9 December 2020, the police headquarters had issued new guidelines to prevent misuse of the provisions of the law. These guidelines prescribed three monthly review of all cases initiated under the Act by a committee headed by the District Magistrate.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Read also: ‘Law ends at UP border’: cases keep creeping into MP/MLA courts of ganglands