Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Constitutionality Of UP Gangsters Act, Says Arbitrary Powers Given To Police

The petition filed by Advocate Md. Anas Chaudhary challenged provisions related to Registration of Cases, Attachment of Properties, Investigation of the Cases and Trial of the cases.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud agreed to list the matter next week after an urgent mention was made by the counsel today morning.

The petitioner submitted that Rule 22 under the Gangster Rules is in violation of the Fundamental Rights as it gives complete discretionary and unfettered powers to the police to invoke Gangsters Act even against a person who is an accused of a single offence. It was also pointed out that the invocation of Gangsters Act and filing an FIR under Gangster Act against a person who has committed a crime and an FIR has already been registered under relevant act is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner also stated that arbitrary powers are granted to the police to invoke Gangsters Act against any person on their own satisfaction which is against the principle of reasonable classification and twin test of classification. It was further pointed out by the Petitioner that Article 13(2) has stipulated that the State shall not make any law which violates the fundamental rights.

The petitioner further points out neither the Act nor the Rules provide for classification of accused persons which leads to the Act being misused by the police.

The petitioner stated in the petition that the District Magistrate has been granted the power of attachment of the properties acquired by Gangsters under section 14 of Gangster Act read with Rule 37 whereby he is acting as a prosecutor. It was further pointed out that a person aggrieved by such attachment proceedings can submit representation before the District Magistrate under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 40 for its release whereby he is also acting as the adjudicator. The petitioner submitted that this is in clear violation if the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner pointed out that the Gangster Acts authorises police remand period upto 60 days and grants one year period for filing police report under section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. 

It was submitted by the petitioner that the Gangster Acts and Rules provides that the special court holds precedence over trial court. If a person against whom trial was going on in the base case and he was acquitted by the court even then, the person can be convicted under the Gangster Act.

The petitioner pointed out that this violates the rights of the person under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 A of the CrPC which guarantee right against double jeopardy.

The petitioner submitted that, "The impugned provisions of the Gangsters Act and Gangsters Rule miserably fail on the touchstone of Article 14 and the parameters for non-arbitrariness provided therein. The Act gives arbitrary powers to police/executive to invoke Gangsters Act against any person on their own satisfaction without any reasonable classification. Any classification based solely or primarily on own personal satisfaction of police/executive ipso facto violates Article 14 of Indian Constitution.....Since the Act gives arbitrary power to the authorities to invoke Gangsters Act on their own satisfaction is affront to the principle of reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia."

The petitioner submits that when a person who is not involved in any crime, he may be booked under the Gangsters Act and that person would get the tag of Gangster attached to his name for the rest of his life which would amount to violation of his right to identity with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner prayed the court to pass direction declaring Sections 3, 12, 14 of Gangster Acts along with Rule 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of Gangster Rules as unconstitutional, illegal and void. It was also prayed to pass orders directing respondents to keep in abeyance the further proceedings of the already registered cases under section 2/3 of Gangsters Act till the pendency of the writ petition and not to register further cases under the impugned provisions.

Md. Anas Chaudhary vs State of Uttar Pradesh