Home · Health · Sep 12 archive
State using Goonda Act as a tool of oppression: Allahabad HC on DM’s externment order
Confirmed
In Short: The Allahabad High Court has criticized the use of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, in declaring Zahid Ali a 'Goonda' and ordering his externment from the district.
The Allahabad High Court has recently criticized the use of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, by the Uttar Pradesh government, stating that it is being used as a tool of oppression despite repeated warnings from courts about its misuse.
The court, in a case involving Zahid Ali, found that the District Magistrate's order to declare Ali a 'Goonda' and banish him from the Gonda district for six months was unjustified.
In a pointed remark, the court highlighted that despite settled law stating that the Goonda Act should be used sparingly in clear cases of public disorder, the state continues to misuse it.
The court allowed the writ petition in full, setting aside both the District Magistrate's order and the Commissioner's appellate order, emphasizing the need for the state to apply the Goonda Act more judiciously.
In conclusion, the court warned that the Goonda Act is preventive, not punitive, and cannot substitute for prosecution under ordinary criminal law, reiterating the need for the state to adhere to legal standards.
What's confirmed
- The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Uttar Pradesh government was continuously using the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as a tool of oppression despite the courts regularly highlighting its misuse [Zahid Ali v State of UP and 4 Others] Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while setting aside District Magistrate Gonda's order declaring one Zahid Ali to be a ‘Goonda’.
What's still developing
- Ali had been ordered to be externed (official ordered to leave) from the district for six months.
- The Court found that out of two cases cited by police to get Ali declared a ‘Goonda’, he had already been acquitted in one of the cases.
- Involvement of a person in a case instituted against him cannot be made a ground to declare him a Goonda after acquittal of the person in that case, the Bench said.
- It also found that there was no allegation that Ali was a threat to maintenance of law order.
- In conclusion, the Court said that Ali’s involvement in a single criminal case registered in 2020 does not establish that he habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences so as to justify his declaration as a Goonda.
- “There is a long time gap between the alleged acts committed by the petitioner in the year 2020 leading to lodging of Case Crime No. 430 of 2020 and declaration of the petitioner as a goonda and his externment from the limits of the District in the year 2026 and there is no reasonable nexus between registration of a criminal case in the year 2020 and declaration of the petitioner as a goonda in the year 2026,” it said.
- It added that the courts have also regularly reminded the State not to misuse it as a tool of oppression against innocent persons as the law is not intended to secure punishment of a person without his conviction for a substantial offence.
- The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, delivering the verdict on a writ petition filed by Zahid Ali under Article 226 of the Constitution, set aside both the District Magistrate's order dated May 11, 2026, declaring Ali a "goonda" and banishing him from Gonda district for six months, and the Commissioner's appellate order of August 12, 2026, which had upheld the externment.