Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, in a matter concerning the use of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act in Commissionerate districts, directed the State authorities to file detailed affidavits setting out district-wise empirical data on registered cases, trials, outcomes and any action taken against responsible officers. The Court stated that every citizen is entitled to equal protection of the law and that recourse to special penal legislation cannot be selective or arbitrary, and it required disclosure of any corrective measures adopted before listing the case for further consideration.

In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants challenge the State’s implementation of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act in districts governed by the police Commissionerate system, particularly the exclusion of the District Magistrate from the joint meeting contemplated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the 2021 Rules. Pursuant to an earlier order, the State placed on record written instructions and a compliance affidavit sworn by the Principal Secretary, Home Department.

Also Read: Recent Trend Of Succeeding Benches Overturning Verdicts Painful, Undermines Article 141 Finality; Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Cancellation Plea And Rejects Relaxation Of Kolkata-Only Condition

The State’s submissions rely on Sections 107, 117, 133, 144 and 145 CrPC to justify the arrangement in Commissionerate areas and on a notification issued under Section 20(2) CrPC by which the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police discharge functions earlier performed by the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police under the Gangsters Act and other statutes. The materials describe the District Magistrate as head of criminal administration in ordinary districts and the Commissioner of Police as performing that role, including executive magistracy and preventive proceedings, in Commissionerate districts. They also refer to the establishment of Commissionerates mainly in metropolitan cities with higher populations and different crime patterns, and note data and descriptions relating to organised crime, trial delays, witness production, witness protection, prosecutorial conduct and internal accountability mechanisms in cases under the Gangsters Act.

The Court observed: “Upon examining the instructions, the justification provided by the Home Department is largely theoretical rather than one derived from empirical data. Reliance has been placed on certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure-namely Sections 107, 117, 133, 144 and 145 Cr.P.C.- to justify excluding the District Magistrate(s) from the mandatory requirement under Rule 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, about participation in the joint meeting in Commissionerate areas.”

The Court recorded systemic concerns, stating: “The concern of the Court lies elsewhere: namely, the recurring misuse of police powers and the over-application of stringent provisions of law to street-level and petty offenders, while actual gangsters and organized crime syndicates- those involved in narcotics trade, financial frauds, land mafia activities, procurement of benami government contracts through sham companies, and white-collar criminals who harbor local offenders for ulterior motives- remain largely unaffected by a lack of systemic policy response.” It further observed: “It has been observed that criminal trials against individuals, say for illustration, with two or more than two dozen FIRs have made no substantial progress even after two to three decades of the filing of a charge-sheet. There is no mechanism or State programme to regulate the affairs of prosecutors and to fix accountability.”

Central to its reasoning, the Court stated: “At its core, the concept of a democratic State rests on the premise that every citizen is not only equal before law but equally entitled to its protection and equally significant in the eyes of a welfare State. Administrators must bear in mind that the choices they make ultimately shape the administration of justice- and history not only records those choices, it also repeats them. This Court reminds the Home Department that ‘selective investigation’ and ‘selective prosecution’ are antithetical to the rule of law and inevitably corrode public trust in governance.”

The Court directed: “In view of the aforesaid deliberations, and to satisfy the requirements of the issues flagged in orders dated 03.03.2025, 11.03.2025, and 12.11.2025 passed by this Court, it is hereby directed as follows:”

“An affidavit shall be furnished by an officer not below the rank of Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, with the prior approval of the competent authority. The affidavit shall contain: (i) the empirical data gathered from the district(s) and/or Commissionerate(s) on the basis of which the Department has arrived at its subjective satisfaction that, under the Commissionerate system functioning in terms of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, the exclusion of the District Magistrate from the joint meeting mandated under Rule 5(3)(a) is justified and is in the interest of the State and its citizens, and further has been capable of achieving the aforesaid objectives; (ii) details of any data, comparative analysis or study conducted by the Department to substantiate its claim that, subsequent to the introduction of the Commissionerate system, the crime rate has decreased in the district(s) where the system has been implemented as compared to those district(s) where the Commissionerate system has not been adopted, and (iii) details of any training programmes imparted to police officers who have been assigned to discharge functions earlier performed by the District Magistrates, along with particulars of any study undertaken by the State Government demonstrating whether the Home Department has been successful in achieving the intended objective.”

“The Director General of Police (Prosecution) shall furnish comprehensive district-wise data in respect of cases under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act for the last ten years by way of a separate affidavit, including: (i) number of cases registered; (ii) number of charge-sheets filed; (iii) number of convictions secured; and (iv) number of acquittals of charge-sheeted accused(s), with a comparative analysis vis-à-vis the non-Commissionerate district(s). The report shall also disclose the systemic reforms and policy decision(s), if any, taken by the Home Department to improve police working, so far as the approval of the gang-chart is concerned.”

Also Read: Differently Abled Child Entitled To Care Of Both Parents ; Gauhati High Court In Transfer Matter Orders Reconsideration Of Army Major’s Joint Posting Request

“The Home Department shall also indicate; (i) the name(s) and number of officers- SSP/SP/DCP and above in police, and Joint Director (Prosecution) and DGC in prosecution department- against whom disciplinary or administrative action has been taken during the last ten years for acts of corruption, inefficiency, negligence, procedural lapses, misuse of power, or violation of guidelines in matters pertaining to the Gangsters Act or in any other ancillary issue; and (ii) the nature of such action, including warnings, adverse entries, suspensions, transfers, departmental inquiries, or any other penalties imposed. This information is being sought in view of the fact that both the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently encountered cases revealing gross misuse of police powers, particularly in relation to the indiscriminate approval of gang-charts and the initiation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act. The aforesaid information and reports shall be submitted on or before the next date of listing.”

“The Registrar (Compliance) is directed forthwith to transmit a copy of this order to the A.C.S. (Home) and Director General of Police (Prosecution) for effective compliance. A copy of this order be also transmitted to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, for ensuring compliance.”

The matter is to be taken up again on 09.12.2025 at 3:00 p.m.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ronak Chaturvedi, Counsel for the Applicants

For the Respondents: Anup Trivedi, Additional Advocate General; Vibhav Anand Singh, Assistant Government Advocate; Government Advocate

Case Title: Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6547 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar