The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order declaring a man a “Goonda” and externing him from Gonda district for six months, observing that the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 must be used sparingly and cannot become a tool of oppression.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi was hearing a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda and the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal. The Court found that the material relied upon by the authorities did not establish the habitual criminal conduct required for action under the Goondas Act.
Background Of The Case
The District Magistrate had passed the impugned order on May 11, 2026 under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, declaring the petitioner a “Goonda” and directing his externment from Gonda for six months.
The action was based primarily on two criminal cases. One was registered in 2010, while the second related to a 2020 case. The District Magistrate also relied upon a beat information report said to have been verified during an inquiry.
The petitioner later pointed out in his appeal that he had already been acquitted in the 2010 case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, in August 2017. Despite this, the Commissioner dismissed his appeal and continued to refer to both cases while considering his alleged criminal involvement.
Court's Observation
The High Court examined the legal requirements for declaring a person a “Goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Act. Referring to earlier decisions, the Court noted that “habitually” indicates repeated and persistent conduct, rather than isolated incidents.
The Court also reiterated that one or two acts are not ordinarily sufficient to establish habitual involvement in offences covered by the legislation. There must also be a reasonable connection between the alleged acts and the proceedings under the Goondas Act.
In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner had already been acquitted in the 2010 case. Therefore, that case could not be relied upon to establish his alleged status as a “Goonda”.
“There is no allegation that the petitioner is a threat to maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate has declared the petitioner to be a Goonda merely on the basis of his involvement in two cases, in one of which he already stands acquitted long before,” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the remaining criminal case dated back to 2020, whereas the externment order was passed in 2026.
It held that the long gap between the alleged incident and the proceedings under the Goondas Act weakened the required connection between the two.
“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,” the Court said.
The Court also held that the beat information report could not be used against the petitioner because he had not been given an opportunity of hearing in relation to the inquiry based on that report. Doing so, it said, would violate the principles of natural justice.
The High Court strongly reiterated that the Goondas Act is preventive legislation and is intended to deal with habitual and dangerous offenders, rather than impose punishment without conviction.
“Numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression, and the present case is a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute,” the Court observed.
Decision
The High Court held that the District Magistrate's order dated May 11, 2026 and the Commissioner's appellate order dated August 12, 2026 were legally unsustainable.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and both orders were quashed.
Case Details
Case Title: Zahid Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8680 of 2026
Judge: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Decision Date: September 10, 2026
-300x169.webp)
