The Allahabad High Court has set aside a notice issued under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, against one Achal Yadav from Hamirpur district. The Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I on October 10, 2025, found the action of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue) to be “mechanical” and “without application of mind,” emphasizing that merely having a few pending cases cannot justify branding someone a “goonda.”
Background
The petition was filed by Achal Yadav to challenge the notice dated July 3, 2025, issued by the ADM (Finance/Revenue), Hamirpur, in Case No. D-20250732000379 under Section 3 of the Goondas Act.
According to the notice, Yadav was accused in four cases - including offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC and two beat reports filed by the Kurara police. His counsel, Advocate Shobhit Yadav, argued that these were minor allegations and did not show any habitual criminal behavior.
The bench took note that the Goondas Act, meant to restrain habitual offenders who pose threats to public order, was being invoked even for trivial matters. “We are witnessing rampant misuse of the provisions of the Goondas Act,” the bench recalled from earlier precedents.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Siddharth referred to the 2023 ruling in Govardhan v. State of U.P., where the Court had cautioned against using the Goondas Act on mere suspicions or single cases. The bench reiterated that being involved in a few isolated cases does not make a person a habitual criminal.
“The very word ‘Goonda’ carries a bundle of stigma and must not be used casually,” the bench noted, expressing displeasure over the practice of issuing notices through printed proformas without assessing a person’s reputation, background, or nuisance value.
The Court observed that executive authorities often act mechanically, branding individuals as goondas without applying their mind to the purpose of the Act. “Issuing notice on solitary or petty cases is quite irritating,” the judges said, remarking that such misuse not only burdens the courts but also damages individuals’ reputations.
Decision
Finding the action of the ADM “per se defective,” the Allahabad High Court quashed the July 3, 2025, notice against Achal Yadav. The bench ruled that the Goondas Act cannot be invoked merely because four cases are pending against a person, unless there is consistent evidence of habitual misconduct.
The Court also reaffirmed its earlier directions to the State Government to ensure uniform guidelines for the use of the Goondas Act and to prevent arbitrary actions by district authorities.
With these observations, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was struck down.
Case Title: Achal Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others
Case Type: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22137 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 10 October 2025
Petitioner’s Counsel: Adv. Shobhit Yadav, Adv. Akhand Pratap Singh
Respondent’s Counsel: Learned A.G.A. (Government Advocate)