The Supreme Court stated that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 should not be ignored just because someone has criminal cases against them.
The Supreme Court stated that the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution cannot be ignored just because someone has criminal cases against them. This decision came from a Criminal Appeal that challenged the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to dismiss an FIR filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The two-Judge Bench, including Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, noted that the right to life and liberty should not be overlooked simply because of criminal charges. They emphasized that giving too much power to authorities in applying the Act is unwise. The Bench also pointed out that just mentioning certain Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not prevent the Court from examining the real situation behind the evidence used to apply the Act.
AOR Ashish Kumar Upadhyay represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Dinesh Kr. Goswami represented the Respondents. The Police filed an FIR against the Appellants, claiming they were part of a gang involved in three criminal cases under various IPC sections. The FIR also mentioned that the gang had a criminal background, and the FIR was filed after getting prior approval from the Commissioner of Police, Agra, to limit the gang’s activities.
The Appellants challenged the FIR through a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court, arguing that the three initial FIRs were connected to a property dispute between two families and that the claims made were civil matters. Therefore, they believed the proceedings under the Gangsters Act should be dismissed. The High Court rejected their Petition but allowed them to seek anticipatory bail or bail, stating that it had not made any decisions on the arguments presented. Unhappy with this outcome, the Appellants took their case to the Supreme Court.
In this context, the Supreme Court stated, “Compliance and strict adherence mean that merely making allegations to justify using the Act is not enough. There must be evidence to assess the likelihood of the alleged offenses. This evidence needs to be more than just presumptive.” The Court emphasized that cases invoking the Act must be serious and not ordinary, and the required severity should not be limited by strict judicial standards, as each case has unique details. “The situation would change if the allegations in the underlying cases were proven at trial, which could support action under the Act. In that case, we would typically avoid interference. However, in the current situation, since the trials for the three CCs have not started or are ongoing, there are only indications and uncertainties regarding the allegations,” it concluded.
The Court noted that the cases in question do not seem to fit the definition of “violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise aimed at disrupting public order or obtaining any unfair advantage,” as stated in Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court approved the Appeal, overturned the contested Judgment, and dismissed the FIR.
Cause Title: Jay Kishan and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 198)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates Anurag Dubey, Anu Sawhney, Maitri Goal, Meenesh Dubey, and Satpal Wadhwa.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dinesh Kr. Goswami, AORs Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Aditya Giri, Advocates Yash Giri, Anuj Shukla, and Hemant Kalra.
