Allahabad HC Lambasts Misuse of UP Control of Goonda Act, 1970

Summary: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Zahid Ali vs State of UP and 4 others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8680 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC-LKO:63435, quashed the orders of the District Magistrate, Gonda and Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, whereby the petitioner had been declared a “Goonda” under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and externed from District Gonda for six months. The Court noted that the police report relied on two criminal cases, although the petitioner had already been acquitted in one case in 2017. After that acquittal, only one criminal case from 2020 remained pending, which by itself could not establish habitual criminal conduct under Section 2(b) of the Act. The Court held that there was no reasonable nexus between a single case registered in 2020 and declaring the petitioner a goonda in 2026. It also held that beat information, verified without giving the affected person an opportunity of hearing, could not be relied upon as it would violate principles of natural justice. The Court strongly observed that despite repeated judicial caution, the State appeared persistent in using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression, and the present case was a glaring example of abuse of the statute. The writ petition was allowed and both impugned orders were quashed.

Allahabad High Court on Misuse of UP Control of Goondas Act

It is definitely a matter of extremely grave concern that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Zahid Ali vs State of UP and 4 others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8680 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC-LKO:63435, pronounced on September 10, 2026, came down heavily upon the Uttar Pradesh State Government and held that the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 was being used as a tool of oppression despite repeated judicial caution against its misuse.

The Single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made these observations while setting aside the order of the District Magistrate, Gonda, declaring Zahid Ali to be a “Goonda”. Zahid Ali had also been ordered to be externed from the district for six months.

The Court made it clear that courts have repeatedly held that the Goonda Act is a powerful tool for control and suppression of “Goondas” and must be used very sparingly in clear cases of “public disorder” or for maintenance of “public order”. The Court also reiterated that the Act should not be misused as a tool of oppression against innocent persons, as the law is not intended to secure punishment of a person without conviction for a substantial offence.

High Court Finds Abuse of Preventive Law

The Bench explicitly held:

“Numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of suppression and the present case is a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute.”

The Court found that out of two cases cited by the police to get Ali declared a “Goonda”, he had already been acquitted in one case. The Court pointed out that the police must have had knowledge of his acquittal.

The Bench opined that mentioning his involvement in that case was deliberately done to portray a false picture of Ali before the District Magistrate. Though Ali had later mentioned this fact in appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, the appellate authority did not apply her mind to the grounds taken by him and confirmed the District Magistrate’s order.

Background of Petition and Externment Order

At the outset, the judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi recorded in para 1:

“Heard Shri Kunwar Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. representing the State of U.P./opposite parties.”

The Bench stated in para 3 that the petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda, in Case No. 342 of 2021 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. By that order, the petitioner was declared to be a Goonda and externed from District Gonda for six months.

The petitioner had challenged the order by filing Appeal No. 895 of 2026 under Section 6 of the Goonda Act. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, and the appellate order was also challenged in the writ petition.

Police Report Relied on Two Criminal Cases

The Bench noted in para 4 that the District Magistrate’s order referred to a report dated 29.10.2020 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, alleging that the petitioner was a person of criminal nature and was involved in two cases:

Case Crime No. 905 of 2010

Case Crime No. 905 of 2010 was registered under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. It was lodged by Shami Ahmad Hussain, alleging that the petitioner and his accomplices entered the complainant’s shop and assaulted, abused and threatened him. A charge-sheet was submitted on 02.11.2010.

Case Crime No. 430 of 2020

Case Crime No. 430 of 2020 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427, 336, 324 and 188 IPC, Section 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. It was lodged by Ram Niranjan Tripathi, alleging that the petitioner, his brothers and other accomplices indulged in brick-batting on the complainant’s house. A charge-sheet was submitted on 13.09.2020.

Beat Information Also Relied Upon

The Bench observed in para 5 that apart from the two FIRs, a beat information report was also registered on 27.10.2020. The order stated that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show-cause notice. The Magistrate recorded that the petitioner’s involvement in two criminal cases in which charge-sheets had been submitted, coupled with verification of beat information, made out a case for declaring him a Goonda.

Petitioner Pointed Out Earlier Acquittal

The Bench noted in para 6 that the petitioner challenged the order by filing Appeal No. 895 of 2026 and contended that he had already been acquitted in Case Crime No. 905 of 2010 by judgment and order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.

He submitted that he was now involved only in one criminal case arising from Case Crime No. 430 of 2020, which had been lodged due to political reasons.

The Bench further noted in para 7 that although a copy of the acquittal order dated 26.08.2017 was produced before the appellate authority and was mentioned in the Commissioner’s order dated 12.08.2026, the Commissioner still recorded that both criminal cases and the beat information report were pending against the petitioner.

The State’s short counter affidavit did not deny that the petitioner had been acquitted in Case Crime No. 905 of 2010.

Definition of “Goonda” Under Section 2(b)

The Bench referred to Section 2(b) of the Goonda Act, which defines “Goonda” as a person who:

(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets commission of offences punishable under Section 153, Section 153-B, Section 294 or Chapters XV, XVI, XVII or XXII of the IPC; or

(ii) has been convicted under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or

(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Sections 25, 27 or 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or

(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or

(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or

(vi) is a tout.

Law on Habitual Criminality Under Goonda Act

The Court referred to Rahul v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 21744, where earlier precedents including Imran Alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of U.P., Shankar Ji Shukla v. Ayuqt Allahabad Mandal, Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P., Govardhan v. State of U.P., Satendra v. State of U.P. and Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. were considered.

The principles summarized by the Court included:

1. A person can be termed as a “Goonda” only if he is a habitual criminal. “Habitually” means repeatedly or persistently.

2. One or two acts are not sufficient to hold that a person is habitually involved in offences referred to in the Act.

3. There must be a reasonable nexus between the accused’s acts and their impact on society.

4. There should not be a long time gap between proceedings under the Act and the acts relied upon.

5. The legislation is preventive and not punitive.

6. The Goonda Act should be used sparingly in clear cases of public disorder or maintenance of public order.

7. It should not be misused as a tool of oppression against innocent persons.

8. It is not intended to punish a person without conviction for a substantial offence.

Acquitted Case Could Not Support Goonda Proceedings

The Bench held in para 11 that although the police report alleged involvement in two cases, it was undisputed that the petitioner had already been acquitted in Case Crime No. 905 of 2010 by judgment dated 26.08.2017.

The Court held that involvement in a case instituted against a person cannot be made a ground to declare him a Goonda after acquittal in that case.

Solitary Pending Case Not Enough

The Bench observed in para 12 that there was no allegation that the petitioner was a threat to maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate had declared him a Goonda merely on the basis of two cases, one of which had ended in acquittal long before.

After the acquittal, only a single criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 430 of 2020 remained pending. The petitioner was already facing prosecution in that case and it was not as if he could not be dealt with under ordinary penal law.

Police Portrayed False Picture Before District Magistrate

The Bench pointed out in para 13 that although the petitioner did not file objections before the District Magistrate bringing the acquittal to his notice, the police must have known about the acquittal in Case Crime No. 905 of 2010.

The Court held that mentioning his involvement in that case in the police report indicated that the police had deliberately portrayed a false picture of the petitioner before the District Magistrate.

Commissioner Failed to Apply Mind

The Bench observed in para 14 that the petitioner had specifically stated before the Commissioner that he had already been acquitted in Case Crime No. 905 of 2010 and was now involved only in one criminal case.

Although this fact was mentioned in the Commissioner’s order, the Commissioner still concluded that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases, including the acquitted case. The Court held that this showed non-application of mind and made the appellate order unsustainable in law.

No Nexus Between 2020 Case and 2026 Externment

Most significantly, the Bench held in para 15 that involvement in a single criminal case instituted in 2020 does not establish that the petitioner habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets offences so as to justify his declaration as a Goonda under Section 2(b)(i) of the Act.

The Court further held that there was a long time gap between the alleged acts of 2020 and the declaration of the petitioner as a Goonda in 2026. Therefore, there was no reasonable nexus between registration of a criminal case in 2020 and declaration of the petitioner as a Goonda in 2026.

Beat Information Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice

The Bench held in para 16 that although the District Magistrate and Commissioner mentioned that beat information had been verified, no case was registered on the basis of that beat information.

Further, the person against whom beat information was registered was not given an opportunity of hearing. Any inquiry based on beat information without hearing the affected person could not be used as a ground to declare him a Goonda, as it would violate principles of natural justice.

State Persistent in Using Goonda Act as Tool of Oppression

In para 17, the Court made a strong observation:

“Although the Courts have repetitively held that the Goonda Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the ‘Goondas’: that it should be used very sparingly in very clear cases of ‘public disorder’ or for the maintenance of ‘public order’; that it should not be allowed to be misused as a tool of oppression of innocent persons and that the Goonda Act is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence, numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression, and the present case is a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute.”

District Magistrate and Commissioner Orders Quashed

The Bench held in para 18 that the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda, in Case No. 342 of 2021 under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, and the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, dismissing Appeal No. 895 of 2026, were unsustainable in law.

Finally, in para 19, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both orders.

Conclusion

This judgment is a significant indictment of misuse of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that preventive statutes cannot be used as instruments of punishment or oppression. A solitary old criminal case, especially where another cited case has already ended in acquittal, cannot justify branding a person as a habitual criminal or externing him from the district.

The ruling reiterates that action under the Goonda Act must be confined to clear cases involving habitual criminality, public disorder or threat to public order, and must satisfy the requirements of natural justice, application of mind and reasonable nexus between the material relied upon and the preventive action taken.