UP bureaucrats using Goondas Act as ‘tool of oppression’: HC

The observations were made while allowing a writ petition filed by Abhishek Tyagi, who had challenged proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970

PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court has said that the Goondas Act is being used as a tool of oppression by Uttar Pradesh bureaucrats and the state despite the court’s consistent rulings on the issue.

The court also said the state government was at liberty to recover the damages from the salaries of the bureaucrats concerned. (File Photo)

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain held that the bureaucracy must stop issuing illegal and arbitrary orders, or else it will have to face punitive damages.

The observations were made while allowing a writ petition filed by Abhishek Tyagi, who had challenged proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

The court quashed the orders passed by the additional commissioner of police, Ghaziabad, and the commissioner, Meerut division, and awarded ₹50,000 as damages to the petitioner.

The court also said the state government was at liberty to recover the damages from the salaries of the bureaucrats concerned.

The proceedings against Tyagi were initiated on the basis of two criminal cases. The additional commissioner of police, Ghaziabad, by order dated September 18, 2025, directed Tyagi to reside 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 the order was subsequently dismissed by the commissioner, Meerut Division, on December 10, 2025.

The court said that despite its consistent stand that merely on the basis of one or two cases a person cannot be branded a ‘goonda’, 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,” added the court.

It added: “It is well settled that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a ‘goonda’. Such punitive action on the part of the state causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such person and his family.”

The court further 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.”

It further said that the time has now come for a strong message to be sent to the bureaucracy to stop such conduct or face punitive damages.