Back
Warns Bureaucrats, Awards Rs 50K Damages for Illegal '' Tag
The
has sent a strong message to Uttar Pradesh bureaucrats: stop arbitrarily branding citizens as "Goondas" or pay
from your own pockets. Justice Sandeep Jain, presiding over a single-judge bench, quashed proceedings against Abhishek Tyagi after finding that he had been declared a
based on just two criminal cases—a practice the Court said was
"contrary to the objects of the Act"
and amounted to using the law as a "
."
Two Cases, Three Years Apart, One Illegal Label
The case arose from proceedings initiated against Tyagi under . The authorities relied on Case Crime No. 326 of (under ) and Case Crime No. 174 of (under various sections)—both registered at in Ghaziabad.
On , the Additional Commissioner of Police, , directed Tyagi to reside at his permanent address and mark his attendance at the local police station every second and fourth Saturday for six months. His appeal to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, was dismissed on , prompting the petition to the High Court.
Petitioner's Argument: Settled Law Ignored
Counsel for Tyagi, Advocates and , argued that it is "well settled" that a person cannot be branded a merely on the basis of two cases. They contended that the word "" in the Act requires repeated, persistent involvement in offences—something the three-year gap between the two cases disproved.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, defended the orders, submitting that the two registered cases demonstrated Tyagi was a and that the orders suffered from no illegality.
Court's Legal Analysis: What '' Really Means
Justice Jain examined a line of precedents from coordinate and division benches of the same court. In
Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Pandey v. State of UP
(
), the court held that
"one or two criminal cases against a person will not be sufficient to hold that he is
involved in commission of such offences."
The judgment further quoted
Shankar Ji Shukla v. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal
(
), which explained:
"The expression '
' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a
stringing together similar
. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit."
Citing a division bench decision in
Govardhan v. State of UP
(
), the Court noted that the label "
" itself
"carries bundle load of bad name,"
and that
—one or two in number—cannot justify such branding.
Applying these principles, Justice Jain found that the two cases, registered three years apart, did not establish Tyagi as a
.
"Such punitive action on the part of the State causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such person and his family,"
the Court observed.
Key Observations
The Court did not mince words in its criticism of the bureaucracy:
"It is apparent that the Act of is being used as a by the bureaucracy and the State, which is contrary to the objects of the Act of ."
"This Court has up till now refrained from imposing damages on the bureaucrats who are continuously passing whimsical orders... but now time has come when a strong message is required to be sent to the bureaucracy to stop doing this or otherwise face ."
Court's Decision and Damages
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing both the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police and the appellate order of the Commissioner. The entire proceedings against Tyagi under the Goondas Act were set aside.
Going further, Justice Sandeep Jain awarded Tyagi Rs 50,000 as damages
"for the suffering and agony meted out to him by declaring him '
' under the Act."
The Court directed that the amount be paid within one month, and granted the State liberty to recover it
"from the salary of the concerned bureaucrats."
If the payment is not made on time, Tyagi can initiate recovery proceedings.
The judgment serves as a clear warning to executive authorities: casual and irresponsible use of the Goondas Act will no longer be tolerated, and the financial consequences will be personal.
