High Court. File | Photo Credit: Neither
The Supreme Court concluded that the use of the UTTAR Pradesh Gangster Act – a law that was supposed to face organized crime – in the lonely case of the municipal disruption caused by the “Western” contribution to social media, is an abuse of the Strict Criminal Code.
The recent judgment written by the judge Sandeep Mehta came after the court heard the appeal lodged by people accused under state law for mobbing and the vandalizing business system of a man who sent content to a specific religion on social media.
“When rivaling with the object and intention of the UP Gangster law, which was enacted in the fight against an organized crime based on a gang and dismantled criminal syndicates representing a persistent threat to public order, the application of a petitioner based on a single incident. The justice he wrote, ”MEHTA justice to write.
“Coloring Power Exercise”
The judgment stated that the application of gangsters at the same time carried “a characteristic feature of a colorful performance of power for the purposes, inter alia, the legitimate objective of the law”.
The court reminded the state government of Article 21 of the Constitution that “no person will be deprived of life or personal freedom, with the exception of the procedure stipulated by law”.
The Justice Mehta noted that the procedure prescribed by law must be a fair, fair, adequate and not arbitrary, expected or repressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal freedom has gained even greater importance if the “state has triggered” extraordinary legislation with strict provisions “, such as the Gangster Act, he said.
“The strength of the state cannot be controlled as a tool of harassment or intimidation, especially if there may be political motivation in the game,” said the Justice Mehta.
“You need solid evidence”
Extraordinary criminal provisions, especially those that basically resolve regular procedure guarantees, such as the UP Gangster Act, only if the evidence has met the threshold of credibility and essence.
“The materials they rely on must determine a reasonable connection between the accused and alleged crime … If the status creates serious fetters about personal freedom, the evidence for its induction must be reasonably strong, supported by specific, verifiable facts rather than lime,” the Supreme Court said.
The court stated that it canceled the company and allowed the appeal and stated that the case did not meet the “basic threshold” necessary to induce the Gangster Act. She rested “mostly on the anticipated theories rather than a performance of tangible material to prove the likelihood that the petitioners have been involved in organized crime,” the court said.
Published – June 21, 2025 22:02
