The Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny for the application of the Gangsters UP law
Last Updated on February 13, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 12) ruled that strict scrutiny signed by strict laws is required, such as the Law of Gangsters of Uttar Pradesh, to avoid misuse in property or financial disputes.
The court emphasized that article 21 of the Constitution cannot be ignored solely based on the registration of a criminal offense. In addition, he ruled that the authorities cannot receive discretion without restrictions in invoking the strict provisions of the law.
“Ultimately, the right to life and freedom guaranteed in article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot only be ignored for the reason why criminal cases have registered against a person. It would be reckless to grant any discretion without restrictions to the interested authorities when it comes to invoking the law. The strictest or criminal disposition is the emphasis and the requirement of being strictly interpreted, ”the court observed.
A Bench of Judges Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dissmised a criminal case against three persons registered under the law of gangsters and antisocial activities (prevention) of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 (“Gangsters Law”), observing that a real estate dispute between the parts of The parts of the parties I have. He directed the culmination of a FIR under the law of gangsters.
When reading the content of the FIR, the Court found nothing to suggest that people were involved in the activity of gangs involving public intimidation or organized crime.
The judgment written by Judge Amanullah said that the courts must guarantee a strict adhesion to the legal requirements before allowing prosecution under strict laws such as the law of gangsters.
The reference was attracted to the recent case of Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v State of Assam, where the court observed that “if special provisions are taken in the deployment of the general right of a citizen, the statute, in our opinion, in our opinion, in our opinion, In our opinion, in our opinion, you should receive a strict construction.
The court also referred to the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of Up (2023) pointing out that the courts must look beyond the mere accusations and ensure that cases under special laws comply with the legal threshold.
“Assuming that all accusations in the three (or four, including the CC to which reference is not made in the FIR) are correct, no instance is mentioned, after the registration of said CCS, of which they implement/act in the WHO said. alleged threats. The plaintiff (s)/informant (s) has also resorted, when necessary, to civil procedures. In the general image that arises from the above, the appeal to the State’s law seems premature and without being inactive, ”the court observed.
In this context, the Court allowed the appeal and annulled the case against the recurring.
