The Allahabad High Court awarded Rs 50,000 in damages to petitioner Abhishek Tyagi, against whom proceedings under the Goondas Act had been initiated. (File photo)

Goondas Act can't be used as tool of oppression by bureaucrats: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court cancelled Goondas Act proceedings against Abhishek Tyagi and awarded him Rs 50,000. It said the law was being used oppressively and warned officials against arbitrary orders.

by · India Today

In Short

  • Allahabad High Court slams misuse of UP Goondas Act by bureaucrats
  • Cancels proceedings against petitioner under Goondas Act
  • Warns bureaucrats against taking arbitrary orders under Act

The Allahabad High Court has said the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, is being used as a tool of oppression by bureaucrats and the state government, despite the court's consistent rulings on the issue. It warned that the bureaucracy must stop issuing illegal and arbitrary orders or face punitive damages.

The court awarded Rs 50,000 in damages to petitioner Abhishek Tyagi, against whom proceedings under the Goondas Act had been initiated. It also said the state government was free to recover the amount from the salaries of the bureaucrats concerned.

In an order dated September 10, Justice Sandeep Jain allowed Tyagi's petition challenging the proceedings initiated against him under the Act. The court quashed the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and the Commissioner, Meerut Division.

Proceedings against Tyagi had been started on the basis of two criminal cases. By an order dated September 18, 2025, the ACP, Ghaziabad, had directed Tyagi to stay at his permanent address and mark his attendance at the police station concerned on every second and fourth Saturday for six months.

His appeal against that order was later dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, on December 10, 2025.

The court said that despite its consistent view that a person cannot be branded a "goonda" merely on the basis of one or two cases, the bureaucracy had "deliberately not noticed this" and was continuing to pass contrary orders.

"Moreover, there is a gap of 3 years in the occurrence of the two criminal cases which shows that he is not a habitual offender," the court added.

It then observed, "It is apparent that the Act of 1970 is being used as a tool of oppression by the bureaucracy and the State which is contrary to the objects of the Act of 1970."

The court further said the time had come for a strong message to be sent to the bureaucracy to stop such conduct or face punitive damages.

- Ends