Back
Allahabad High Court Quashes Declaration Against Zahid Ali, Slams UP's Persistent Misuse of Act
A 'Glaring Example' of Abuse: Court Quashes Based on Acquitted Case
The has strongly rebuked the for what it called a "persistent" misuse of the , as it quashed an against a Gonda resident. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi set aside both the District Magistrate's order declaring Zahid Ali a '' and externing him for six months, and the Commissioner's appellate order that had upheld the externment.
Single Criminal Case Not Enough to Prove 'Habitual' Criminality
The
, passed on
, relied on Ali's alleged involvement in two criminal cases: a
case involving assault and intimidation, and a
case related to rioting and violations of the
. However, the High Court noted that Ali had already been acquitted in the
case by the
, in
. The court held that
"involvement of a person in a case instituted against him cannot be made a ground to declare him a
after acquittal of the person in that case."
With only one pending case from , the court found that this did not meet the threshold of "habitually" committing offences required under Section 2(b)(i) of the Act to declare someone a . The court also flagged a six-year gap between the incident and the 2026 externment, holding that there was "no " between the registration of the criminal case and the .
Used Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice
The High Court further rejected the reliance on a "
" that had been cited to support the externment. The court noted that no case was registered on the basis of this report, and Ali was never given an opportunity of hearing in relation to it. An inquiry conducted without such hearing, the court ruled,
"cannot be used as a ground to declare him to be a
, as it would violate the
."
Appellate Authority's '' Renders Order Unsustainable
Even after Ali specifically raised his acquittal in the case before the Commissioner during his appeal, the appellate authority still relied on the acquitted case to dismiss his challenge. The High Court held this showed "," making the appellate order "unsustainable in law."
The court also criticized the police for including the acquitted case in their report to the District Magistrate, observing that the police "must have had knowledge" of the acquittal and that its inclusion
"indicates that the police has deliberately portrayed a false picture of the petitioner before the District Magistrate."
'State Persistent in Using Act as ': Court
In pointed observations, Justice Vidyarthi noted that despite repeated judicial pronouncements holding that the
Act is a powerful tool meant to be used sparingly only in clear cases of public disorder, the court continues to see a stream of similar cases. The bench remarked:
"numerous cases are being presented before this Court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the
Act as a
, and the present case is a
of the aforesaid statute."
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing both the District Magistrate's dated , and the Commissioner's appellate order dated . The decision reinforces that the Act is preventive, not punitive, and cannot substitute for prosecution under ordinary criminal law.
