A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi delivered the verdict on a writ petition filed by Zahid Ali under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court set aside the District Magistrate’s order dated May 11, 2026, which had declared Ali a “goonda” and banished him from Gonda district for six months. It also quashed the Commissioner’s appellate order dated August 12, 2026, which had upheld the externment.
The High Court made pointed observations about the continued use of the Goonda Act, noting that settled law describes it as a “powerful tool” that should be used only “sparingly in very clear cases of public disorder.” Despite this legal position, the court said it continues to see a stream of similar cases.
The bench observed that “numerous cases are being presented before this court, indicating that the State is persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression.” It described Ali’s case as “a glaring example of the abuse of the aforesaid statute.”
The externment order was based on Ali’s alleged involvement in two criminal cases. One was a 2010 case involving charges of assault and intimidation. The other was a 2020 case linked to rioting, property damage and violations under the Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act.
However, Ali had already been acquitted in the 2010 case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, in August 2017. The State’s own counter affidavit did not dispute the acquittal.
Ali specifically raised the acquittal before the Commissioner during his appeal, but the appellate authority continued to rely on the acquitted case while rejecting his challenge. The High Court held that this reflected “non-application of mind” and rendered the appellate order “unsustainable in law”.
After excluding the acquitted case, the court found that Ali was involved in only a single pending case from 2020. According to the court, this was far short of the “habitual” criminal conduct threshold required under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 for declaring a person a goonda.
The court also flagged the long and unexplained gap between the 2020 case and the externment order issued in 2026. It held that the delay undermined the “reasonable nexus” required by law between the alleged conduct and the preventive action taken against Ali.
The High Court further rejected reliance on a “beat information report” cited in support of the externment order. The court noted that Ali had never been given an opportunity to be heard on the report, amounting to a violation of natural justice. It held that the defect could not be cured by subsequent claims that the report had been “verified”.
Reiterating that the Goonda Act is preventive rather than punitive, the court held that the legislation cannot be used as a substitute for prosecution under ordinary criminal law.
The High Court consequently allowed Ali’s writ petition in full and quashed both the District Magistrate’s May 11, 2026 externment order and the Commissioner’s August 12, 2026 order dismissing his appeal. The ruling places the court’s concerns over the repeated use of the Goonda Act at the centre of the case, particularly where the material relied upon does not establish the statutory threshold for preventive action.
About The Author
Comment List