Lucknow: In a significant ruling concerning preventive detention and administrative powers, the Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the recurring misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, observing that the State appears persistent in using the legislation as a "tool of oppression" and harassment.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while allowing a writ petition filed by Zahid Ali, a resident of Gonda district, who challenged orders declaring him a "goonda" under the Goondas Act and directing his externment from the district for six months.
The District Magistrate's order was based on the petitioner's alleged involvement in two criminal cases and a beat information report. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had already been acquitted in one of the criminal cases years earlier, making reliance on that case legally unsustainable.
The Court observed that a person cannot be branded a habitual offender on the basis of an acquitted case. It further found that the remaining criminal case dated back to 2020, whereas the externment order was passed in 2026, creating a substantial gap with no reasonable connection between the alleged conduct and the preventive action.
Justice Vidyarthi emphasized that the Goondas Act is a powerful preventive statute intended to maintain public order and should be invoked only in exceptional and clearly established cases. The Court reiterated that the law is not designed to punish individuals without conviction or to become an instrument of administrative oppression.
The High Court also questioned the reliance placed on police beat information reports, noting that no criminal proceedings had arisen from such reports and that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to respond. The Court held that reliance on such material violated principles of natural justice.
Additionally, the Court found fault with the appellate authority for ignoring the petitioner's acquittal and treating the acquitted case as if it were still pending. This, the Court observed, reflected a clear non-application of mind.
Concluding that the statutory requirements for invoking the Goondas Act had not been met, the Court quashed both the District Magistrate's externment order and the appellate order. The judgment reinforces judicial safeguards against arbitrary use of preventive laws and highlights the need for authorities to exercise such powers cautiously and strictly within legal limits.