SUPREME COURT: MERE PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNAL CLASH INSUFFICIENT TO INVOKE UP GANGSTERS ACT WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HABITUAL OFFENDING:

The Supreme Court recently ruled that stringent statutes like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) cannot be invoked against individuals based solely on their participation in a single instance of anti-social activity, unless there is clear evidence demonstrating previous or ongoing organized criminal conduct. The Court emphasized that merely naming multiple individuals as accused in an FIR, without substantiating their organizational roles, command hierarchy, or evidence of sustained coordinated criminal activity, does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites required to establish membership in a gang under the Act.

Elaborating further, the Court observed that in the absence of credible evidence proving that the accused were part of a structured gang engaged in continuous criminal activity, mere involvement in communal violence—even if severe—would not justify the application of the Gangsters Act. It explained that the mere fact that the appellants participated in a demonstration following a communal flare-up, however serious that event may have been, does not automatically categorize them as a “gang.” Without demonstrable evidence of organized and continuous criminal behavior, such classification would be unwarranted.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who were adjudicating an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR filed under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act. The FIR in question, dated October 11, 2022, arose from an incident the previous day, on October 10, 2022, which stemmed from the circulation of a social media post allegedly defaming a particular religion. This post incited violent protests involving the appellants. The appellants argued that the invocation of the Gangsters Act in their case was unjustified, as there was no evidence of subsequent offences or any pattern of organized criminal conduct between the date of the incident and the date of preparation of the gang chart on April 29, 2023. They maintained that the isolated incident on October 10, 2022, though serious, could not be construed as proof of habitual or ongoing criminal behavior.

Agreeing with the appellants’ position, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta pointed out that the FIR failed to provide any substantive evidence establishing a hierarchical gang structure, systematic planning, or coordinated criminal activities that would distinguish the group involved from a spontaneous assemblage of individuals reacting to a communal incident. The Court found that the FIR did not indicate any continued engagement in anti-social activities following the incident, thereby failing to satisfy the requirement of a sustained criminal enterprise, which the Gangsters Act is specifically designed to address.

The Court noted that in the present case, the communal incident took place on October 10, 2022, and the appellants were subsequently granted bail in January 2023 after competent courts determined that there was no prior criminal history and that the injuries resulting from the incident were minor. The gang chart was then prepared and approved on April 29, 2023, followed by the registration of the impugned FIR on April 30, 2023, significantly after the original incident and without any intervening acts that might suggest fresh or continued criminal conduct. This sequence of events, the Court observed, strongly indicated that the gang chart was a retrospective creation, aimed at reclassifying a previously investigated and prosecuted incident of communal unrest as an act of organized crime. This recharacterization occurred without the discovery of any new evidence that could justify such an escalation.

In conclusion, the Court clarified that the purpose of the UP Gangsters Act is to target habitual and organized offenders, not individuals involved in isolated and uncoordinated incidents of violence. Since no recurring or habitual criminal behaviour could be attributed to the appellants, the Court held that the continuation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act would amount to a misuse of the legal process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the FIR registered under the Gangsters Act was quashed.