Supreme Court Gears Up for Clash Over 'Draconian' Gangster Laws: UP Act in the Dock Alongside National Peers

In a move signaling a potential seismic shift in India's battle against organized crime, the Supreme Court has referred a high-stakes constitutional challenge to Uttar Pradesh's Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, to a three-judge bench. The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi , ordered the tagging of similar petitions against analogous laws from Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Delhi. Samajwadi Party leader Irfan Solanki 's plea accuses the UP law of enabling political vendetta through double prosecutions and eroded rights.

From Assembly Victory to Gangster Tag: Solanki's Fightback

Irfan Solanki, a two-time MLA from Uttar Pradesh who won elections in 2017 and 2022, finds himself ensnared in what he calls a web of politically motivated FIRs. In 2022, an FIR under various IPC sections—including rioting, arson, and criminal intimidation—led to his conviction by a trial court, though he is out on bail pending High Court appeal. Shockingly, the same offences triggered a second FIR under the UP Gangsters Act, with the High Court rejecting his quash plea. Solanki argues this double prosecution violates Article 20(2) 's protection against being tried twice for the same offence.

The petition targets Sections 2(b)(iii) and 3(1) of the Act, plus Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3), and (4) of the 2021 Rules (with sources noting additional sections like 12-17 and Rule 40). Solanki contends these provisions transform routine IPC crimes into "gangster" offences without objective criteria, presuming guilt pre-trial and vesting unchecked power in police and district magistrates—breaching Articles 14 (equality), 20(2) (double jeopardy), and 21 (life and liberty).

State's Defence Meets Broader Ripple Effect Warning

Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj , for Uttar Pradesh, flagged the petition's far-reaching impact on state laws combating organized crime: Gujarat's Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 ; Maharashtra's Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (extended to Delhi); and Karnataka's Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 . Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam for Solanki countered, dismissing notions of "bench hunting" by highlighting scattered listings of similar matters, and argued the UP Act's repugnancy to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , which comprehensively covers organized crime.

Solanki's broader assault labels the law "draconian" in the current political climate: vague "gang activity" definitions invite arbitrary use, reverse innocence presumption (e.g., Section 19(4) ), and fuse executive adjudication in the District Magistrate's hands, flouting separation of powers.

Court Draws Battle Lines: Tagging, Impleading, and a United Front

Recognizing the pan-India stakes, the bench directed the Registry to tag all challenges to these statutes—except part-heard matters like a January 2025 two-judge bench probe into BNS repugnancy. Notably, in February 2026, CJI Surya Kant had rebuked the Registry for splintering similar cases across benches.

The Court impleaded the Union of India via the Ministry of Home Affairs , serving notice through the Attorney General. Advocates General from Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and NCT Delhi must assist, joining ASG Nataraj. No final merits ruling yet—the matter is posted for hearing on May 21, 2026 .

Key Observations

"The instant Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks to declare Sections 2(b)(iii) and 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 read with Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3), and (4) ... as ultra-vires the Constitution of India, on the premise that these provisions are violative of Articles 14, 20(2), and 21."

"It is pointed out ... that the outcome of these proceedings will have a direct impact on various similar laws pertaining to organised crimes enacted by some of the States like Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Delhi."

"Post this matter for a final hearing before a three-Judge Bench on 21.05.2026."

Future Fallout: A Test for Crime-Fighting Laws?

This consolidation could redefine how states tackle gangsters without trampling rights. If Solanki prevails, stringent bail bars, property attachments, and guilt presumptions in these Acts may face overhaul—easing paths for accused but challenging law enforcement. For now, the Court has set the stage for a landmark scrutiny, balancing security imperatives against constitutional safeguards.