The Allahabad High Court sought Uttar Pradesh's response and stayed six Gangsters Act proceedings. The order examines how Supreme Court rulings affect prosecutions under the law.Image used for representational purposes onlyLucknow,Oct 30, 2026 19:18 ISTThe Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has sought the Uttar Pradesh government's response after the Supreme Court described the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, as a "stillborn law", news agency Press Trust of India reported.The High Court also stayed further proceedings under the law in six petitions until the next hearing.
The Supreme Court had observed that a person could not be punished under legislation that did not create an independent offence.Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order on Thursday while hearing six petitions challenging proceedings under the Gangsters Act. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shiv Pratap Singh alias Chinu versus State of Uttar Pradesh.According to PTI, the petitioners said the Supreme Court had held that the law did not define a separate offence but provided definitions of a "gang" and a "gangster", along with punishment based on a gang chart.
They argued that no person could be punished under the Act without an independently defined offence. The Supreme Court had quashed proceedings initiated under the law in the cases before it.The petitioners also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Jyoti Suri versus State of Uttar Pradesh, claiming that proceedings had been quashed following that ruling.
They further informed the High Court that a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Gangsters Act, titled Irfan Solanki versus State of Uttar Pradesh, was pending before the Supreme Court.The additional government advocate, representing the state government, advised the petitioners to approach the trial court with applications seeking discharge. However, he did not dispute the Supreme Court's judgment or the pendency of the Irfan Solanki matter, PTI reported.Finding that the issue required examination, the High Court directed the secretary of the state home department to file a response within three weeks.
The petitioners were given another two weeks to submit their reply.The additional government advocate was also directed to inform the court about the current status of the Irfan Solanki case pending before the Supreme Court.The High Court ordered that the six petitions be listed immediately after the replies are filed and stayed the proceedings under the Gangsters Act until the next hearing, while seeking the state government's stand on the effect of the Supreme Court rulings.- Ends