Mere Involvement In Communal Clash Not Enough To Attract UP Gangsters Act Without Proof Of Habitual Criminality : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that stringent state laws such as the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) cannot be applied to individuals solely for their involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity, in the absence of evidence indicating prior or ongoing coordinated criminal conduct.

“The mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing gang membership.”, the court said.

The Court further observed that, unless there is evidence establishing that the accused was part of an organized gang engaged in continuous criminal activity, mere involvement in communal violence, regardless of its gravity, would not justify the invocation of the Gangsters Act.

“Mere involvement of the accused appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso facto transform the participants into a 'gang' without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity.” the court added.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash an FIR filed under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986. The FIR dated 11.10.2022 stemmed from an incident on 10.10.2022, triggered by a social media post allegedly defaming a particular religion, which subsequently led to violent protests involving the Appellants.

The appellants contended that the UP Gangsters Act was wrongly invoked against them, as the FIR does not indicate any subsequent offences or a pattern of organized criminal behavior between the initial FIR registered on 11th October 2022 and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April 2023. They argued that the lone incident on 10th October 2022, despite its seriousness, cannot be treated as evidence of continued or habitual criminal conduct.

Finding force in the Appellants' contention, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta found that the impugned FIR nowhere provided substantive evidence of hierarchical structure, systematic planning, or coordinated criminal activities that would distinguish this group from a group of individuals involved in a spontaneous communal protest.

“Furthermore, the FIR does not demonstrate any pattern of the offending group engaging in the enumerated anti-social activities beyond this single incident, thereby failing to establish the sustained criminal enterprise that the UP Gangsters Act is designed to address.”, the court noted.

“In the present case, the incident occurred on 10th October, 2022, and the appellants were granted bail in January, 2023, after the competent courts found no criminal history and only simple injuries resulting from the altercation. The gang chart was prepared and approved on 29th April, 2023, and the impugned FIR was registered on 30th April, 2023, sans any fresh or intervening conduct. This sequence indicates that the gang chart was manifestly a post facto construction aimed at recharacterizing an already investigated and prosecuted communal altercation as an act of organised crime, without any new evidence to warrant such a serious escalation.”, the court observed.

In essence, the Court clarified that the UP Gangsters Act is intended to target habitual offenders, not individuals involved in isolated incidents of communal unrest. As there was no evidence of recurring criminal conduct by the appellants, the Court held that allowing proceedings under the Gangsters Act to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Resultantly, the Appeal was allowed, and the impugned FIR registered under the UP Gangsters Act was quashed.

Case Title: LAL MOHD. & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Mohammad Aslam , AOR Mr. Shahid Azad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shoaib, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asif Rander, Adv. Mr. Manoharan Vv, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Yusuf Khan, Adv. Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv. Mr. Mateen Ahmad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Namit Saxena, AO