The Supreme Court today held that the issues raised in the challenge to provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, have wider constitutional implications, noting that similar laws exist in several States. Accordingly, it directed that the State of Uttar Pradesh, along with the States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Delhi, be heard, impleaded the Union of India as a party, and ordered that all connected matters be tagged and placed for final hearing before a three-judge Bench.

During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was taken through a series of prior orders to demonstrate that none of them conclusively determined the issues now raised. It was pointed out that an earlier order passed in 2022 merely declined to entertain a petition under Article 32 and granted liberty to approach the High Court, and therefore “has absolutely no consequence” on the present proceedings.

Similarly, reliance on a subsequent SLP dismissal was countered by emphasising that it was a simple dismissal without grant of leave and did not result in any merger or binding precedent. The Court was also informed that similar issues are already pending before a coordinate Bench where notice had been issued as early as November 2024, and multiple interim orders have since been passed. It was argued that there was no attempt at “bench hunting” and that the present matter had, in fact, sought tagging with the earlier proceedings.

The Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that the outcome of the present case would have a direct bearing on several state legislations dealing with organised crime, including laws in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Delhi.

Taking note of this submission, the Court observed that States having similar statutes ought to be heard before any final determination is made. Directions were issued to inform the respective Advocate Generals of these States to assist the Court, along with KM Nataraj for the State of UP. The Bench also indicated that the Union of India would be a necessary party, particularly in view of questions relating to legislative competence and repugnancy.

The Court directed the Registry to identify all pending cases challenging similar statutory provisions and tag them along with the present matter, excluding those which have already been part-heard.

The matter is to be placed before a three-judge Bench for final hearing.