The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. This comes just 16 days after the same bench issued nationwide guidelines prohibiting illegal demolitions of properties linked to accused persons.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government in response to a petition filed through advocate Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary. The petition challenges Sections 3, 12, and 14 of the Act under the 2021 regulations that govern the registration of cases, property attachment, investigation, and trial.
The petition argues that the Act violates fundamental rights by allowing the government to act as complainant, prosecutor, and adjudicator. Among the contested provisions, Rule 22 permits filing an FIR based on a single act or omission, making the accused’s criminal history irrelevant. The petition claims this undermines due process and breaches protections under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
The petition added that provisions under the Act also enable the government to confiscate entire properties without adequate judicial oversight.
In its November 13 verdict addressing the misuse of bulldozer actions, the Supreme Court said that executive overreach in demolishing properties of accused persons violates the principles of rule of law.
An executive body cannot act as a judge to punish an individual by demolishing properties, especially without following due process. Such actions are arbitrary and unconstitutional, the bench observed. The court said that punitive demolitions without trial recall “lawless state affairs” where “might is right.”
“Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible,” the bench said in its 95-page verdict.
“The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits,” it said.
The Supreme Court bench said the principle that “an accused is not guilty unless proven so in a court of law” is foundational to any legal system.
