Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling

Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives.
Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP
Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group.
It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

27 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Sharing video of polling station violation of voter privacy: EC officials

Amid demands to make public webcasting footage of polling stations, Election Commission officials on Saturday said such a move is violative of privacy and security concerns of voters. They said while such demand suits their narrative in making it sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process, it is, in fact, aimed at achieving exactly the "opposite objective". Officials claimed that what is veiled as a very logical demand is actually "entirely contrary" to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court. Sharing the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements, they asserted. Creating an instance, they said if a particular political party gets the lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and, thereafter, may harass or intimidate them. To be sure, the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an election petition. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining the footage beyond this period makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, the officials underlined. They noted that in case an election petition is filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable for the EC and it has never compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court, the functionaries said. Fearing the use of its electronic data to create "malicious narratives", the Election Commission has instructed its state poll officers to destroy CCTV cameras, webcasting and video footage of the election process after 45 days, if the verdict is not challenged in courts within that period. The remarks come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5 pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. In a letter to state chief electoral officers on May 30, the EC said it has issued instructions for recording various stages of the election process through multiple recording devices -- photography, videography, CCTV and webcasting during the election process. While electoral laws do not mandate such recordings, the Commission uses them as an internal management tool during various stages of the electoral process. "However, the recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out-of-context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review," it said.

First Post

2 hours ago

• First Post

Victory for Trump in US Supreme Court, his tariffs allowed to stay amid legal challenges over trade powers

The US Supreme Court refused to fast-track lawsuits challenging Trump's tariffs, allowing them to remain in effect for now. The court said that it will wait for the appeal court's order read more US President Donald Trump delivered remarks on tariffs, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. A federal appeals court reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs. File image/Reuters The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major legal victory after it refused to put a challenge to his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on the fast track. On Friday, the Supreme Court justices rejected a scheduling request from two family-owned businesses seeking to invalidate many of Trump's import taxes . The rejection means that the Trump administration would have the normal 30 days to file a response to the case. The Tuesday court filing stated that the companies involved in the case were seeking a quick response from the Trump administration, a request which has now been rejected by the country's apex court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to Bloomberg, the two family-owned businesses wanted the court to take the unusual step of considering the case without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on the matter. Meanwhile, the Trump administration argued that the Supreme Court should let the normal appellate process play out. Trump's tariff went to the Supreme Court for the first time It is pertinent to note that this is the first time the challenge to Trump's reciprocal tariffs came to the US Supreme Court. As of now, the legal cases over tariffs are limited to district and federal courts. Meanwhile, a federal district judge agreed with educational toy makers Learning Resources Inc. and Hand2Mind Inc., the two companies involved in the Supreme Court case, that the POTUS lacked the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue sweeping reciprocal tariffs. In a separate case, a federal appeals court ruled that the tariffs could stay in effect at least until that panel hears arguments on July 31. Both courts are dealing with Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which combine a universal baseline levy of 10 per cent with potentially higher rates for various trading partners. It is pertinent to note that each of these suits also concerns at least some of Trump's separate import taxes over fentanyl trafficking. The case that went to the Supreme Court is titled 'Learning Resources v. Trump'.

Indian Express

2 hours ago

• Indian Express

What new Registration Bill says, why it was introduced

The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) has invited suggestions on the new draft Registration Bill 2025, which seeks to replace the 117-year-old Registration Act of 1908. The Bill, the MoRD says, will digitise the registration of property documents, enhance transparency, and maintain digital records. Can it deliver? The Registration Bill, 2025 was introduced to establish a modern framework for registration of land documents, and a more citizen-centric approach. Some key features include: Online/offline registration: End-to-end registrations, from the presentation of documents to their submission, can either be done at the office of the Sub-Registrar or via electronic means. Identity verifications will be carried out via Aadhaar or through an offline verification process (Section 29 (3)). No person can be denied registration of their documents if they do not possess an Aadhaar number (Section 29 (4)). Expanded list of compulsory docs: The Bill expands the list of compulsory registration of documents under Section 12 with the inclusion of agreement of sale, power of attorneys (POAs), sale agreements, mortgage by deposit of title deed, and merger and demerger of companies under the Companies Act, 2013 (Section 12(f-j)). The Bill also provides for simplified optional registration under Section 13 that Section 12 does not cover but fails to specify which documents come under this category, leaving it to wide interpretation. Introducing new positions: In addition to the post of Inspector General of Registration, the Bill introduces Additional and Assistant Inspector Generals of Registration. Section 4(5) states: 'The appropriate government may prescribe the terms and conditions of service, and the duties of the officers appointed under sub-section (4) and authorise them to exercise all or any powers and duties of the Inspector General of Registration.' Reasons for refusal/cancellation: Section 58 of the Bill lists the reasons upon which a document may be refused for registration, including documents submitted without true translation, erasure of content from the documents, documents submitted after the prescribed period of four-months (this is not applicable on wills), or if the person concerned is a minor, mentally incapable or deceased. Section 64(3) states that the Inspector General of the Registration is vested with the power to cancel any registration that appears to be made based on false information, in breach of the provisions of the Act, or if the document was made on a transaction that was found to be conducted against the law. Such reasons must be recorded in writing before passing an order. An appeal can be filed against such an order within 30 days. Reduced imprisonment: The penalties prescribed in the current Act are seven years imprisonment with a fine or both, whereas the new draft bill reduces the imprisonment to three years, along with a fine, or in some cases, both. Why did the current Act need reform? The pre-Independence Registration Act, 1908 provided for registration of various property-related documents. Citizens needed to visit the registration office and submit documents to the Sub-Registrar for the registration process. These documents were required to be presented by persons themselves or their appointed agents. With growing technological advancements and hassle-free methods, 'several states and union territories have already introduced innovations such as online document submission and digital identity verification under the existing 1908 Act,' the MoRD says. As the role of the registered documents increased in both public and private transactions, parallel systems had to be designed to sustain the growing demands. This necessitated an updation of the Act itself — which the Registration Bill 2025 seeks to do. What are some concerns surrounding the Bill? The Bill aims to digitise processes of registration, reduce the risk of title fraud, improve approval rates, and reduce disputes. However, with the maintenance of digital records, important information with regards to e-signatures will be maintained in a digital archive, which may require more robust cybersecurity systems. The Bill may also delegate the registration functions to the Common Services Centres (CSCs). Allowing CSCs to facilitate processes that involve valuation of stamp duty, transfer of title, etc, processes that require legal implications, may create procedural gaps. The portal for suggestions on the draft Bill remains open until June 25.