Supreme Court: Gangsters Act cannot be used without proof of organised crime

New Delhi: In a landmark judgment with wide-ranging implications for the application of anti-gang laws in India, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against former Nagar Panchayat Chairman Lal Mohd and his son. The top court held that there was no evidence to support the claim that the accused were part of an organised criminal gang, and thus, invocation of the stringent Act amounted to a “manifest abuse of the legal process”.

The ruling, pronounced by a Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the case Lal Mohd & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal of 2025; Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 811), overturned the Allahabad High Court’s order from 3 May 2023, which had dismissed the appellants’ plea seeking to quash the FIR lodged on 30 April 2023.

Background: From protest to gang charges

The case arose from a communal disturbance in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, on 10 October 2022, sparked by a social media post allegedly insulting religious sentiments. The post led to protests by members of the affected community, including Lal Mohd, a two-time Nagar Panchayat Chairman. The situation escalated into violence, resulting in two FIRs being filed against several individuals, including the appellants, under various IPC sections related to rioting and public disorder.

However, months later, and notably just 13 days after Lal Mohd’s daughter-in-law filed her nomination for the chairmanship of the Nagar Panchayat, a fresh FIR was registered against the same individuals under the Gangsters Act, based on an old incident without any new acts of crime. The timing, observed the court, raised “serious questions” regarding the motivations behind the FIR.

No evidence of organised crime, says SC

The Supreme Court found that the Gangsters Act was applied without any evidentiary basis to suggest that the accused had engaged in sustained or organised criminal activity. The court said the prosecution’s reliance on a single incident of public protest, which had already resulted in FIRs and bail, did not justify the labelling of the individuals as members of a criminal gang.

“There is no substantiation in the FIR of a structured gang hierarchy, coordinated planning, or repeated criminal acts,” observed Justice Sandeep Mehta, who authored the judgment.

The Bench emphasised that the UP Gangsters Act is an extraordinary piece of legislation meant to combat organised crime, not to penalise isolated acts of public disorder. The court warned that routinely invoking such laws without due diligence would result in the erosion of civil liberties and could open the door to political vendetta.

Political context and legal precedent

The court took note of the timing of the FIR and observed that the FIR’s registration shortly after the filing of nomination papers by Lal Mohd’s family member suggested misuse of legal provisions to suppress political rivals.

Citing the landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the court reiterated that the right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and can be balanced against competing rights such as the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also referred to RM Malkani vs State of Maharashtra (1973) to assert that evidence obtained improperly may still be admissible if relevant and authentic.

Importantly, the Supreme Court stated that extraordinary statutes like the Gangsters Act must be invoked only when clear, credible, and corroborated evidence shows ongoing gang-related activity. Invoking such laws casually infringes on personal liberty, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy.

UP Government guidelines and SC’s direction

The court highlighted that in response to earlier directions issued in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of UP, the Uttar Pradesh Government has since formulated strict guidelines for applying the Gangsters Act. Although these were not in effect at the time of the FIR in question, the Bench noted that even these would not have justified the FIR in this case.

The guidelines require verification of criminal antecedents, assessment of gang activity patterns, and approval from senior authorities. The Bench suggested that these should now be followed stringently in all future cases.

Verdict and conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order from May 2023.

• Quashed the FIR dated 30 April 2023 and all related proceedings under the Gangsters Act.

• Clarified that existing FIRs from 2022 (unrelated to gang charges) would continue on their own merits.

• Reaffirmed that personal liberty cannot be compromised without meeting stringent legal standards.