In a significant judgment, the court emphasizes the misuse of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, highlighting the need for substantial evidence before labeling individuals as habitual offenders.
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the order declaring Rahul Saroj as a "Goonda" under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The decision, delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, underscores the importance of substantial evidence to prove habitual criminal behavior before labeling an individual as a "Goonda."
The petitioner, Rahul Saroj, was previously declared a "Goonda" by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Amethi, based on his involvement in two criminal cases - Case Crime No.343 of 2021 under Sections 376/306 IPC and Case Crime No.57 of 2025 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This declaration was further affirmed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, which led to Saroj's appeal to the High Court.
Justice Vidyarthi's judgment emphasizes the preventive nature of the Goonda Act, stating that it should not be misused as a punitive measure against individuals who can be dealt with under ordinary penal laws. The court noted that the term "Goonda" should be reserved for habitual offenders who persistently engage in criminal activities, posing a threat to public order.
The court highlighted several precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which consistently assert that isolated incidents or dissimilar acts do not justify the label of "Goonda." The judgment draws attention to the misuse of the Act, cautioning against its use as a tool of oppression.
Justice Vidyarthi remarked, "The involvement in two criminal cases, one from 2021 and another from 2025, does not establish habitual criminal behavior. The petitioner is facing prosecution under ordinary penal laws, and there is no evidence to suggest he poses a threat to public order."
The judgment also discusses the importance of maintaining the right to reputation, a facet of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It underscores the stigmatic effect of being labeled a "Goonda" and the irreversible harm to one's reputation.
Ultimately, the court quashed both the initial order by the Additional District Magistrate and the subsequent affirmation by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, providing relief to Saroj. This judgment reinforces the need for careful application of the Goonda Act, ensuring it serves its intended preventive purpose without infringing on the rights of individuals.
Bottom line:-
The term "Goonda" under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, signifies a habitual offender who repeatedly or persistently engages in criminal activities. Isolated or dissimilar acts, or the absence of substantial evidence of habitual criminal behavior, cannot be used to label a person as a "Goonda."
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 Sections 2(b), 3/4, Indian Penal Code Sections 376, 306, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 115(2), 352, 351, 317(2)
Rahul @ Rahul Saroj v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937561
