The Supreme Court has castigated the Uttar Pradesh police for its “casual” and “cavalier” approach in dealing with the liberty of citizens as it quashed the two FIRs against Vinod Bihari Lal, the director of Prayagraj-based Sam Higginbottom University (SHUATS) , in connection with allegations of illegal religious conversions.
Lal, who is the director of administration at the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), was booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 based on two FIRs lodged against him for allegedly misusing around ₹34.5 crore received from foreign sources to fund illegal religious conversions. The Allahabad High Court has previously rejected Lal’s pleas for relief twice. He challenged the orders in the top court in April 2023.
Hearing the matter on May 23, a bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the charge sheet prepared against Lal and another accused was a reproduction of the FIR, and rules were thrown out of the window as a mechanically drawn pre-prepared gang chart was “rubber stamped” by the competent authority without following the mandate under the Gangster Act that laid down a process of consultation followed by satisfaction of senior police officials and district authorities.
Under the Act, “gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities.
Also Read | UP man shot dead during marriage procession in Shahjahanpur over alleged love affair
In its FIR registered in July 2018, the UP police alleged that Lal and one David Dutta formed a gang for committing economic offences involving fraud and cheating for personal, material and pecuniary gain by forging documents. The police investigated and submitted a charge sheet pursuant to which a trial court issued non-bailable warrants against them in February 2023.
Finding that nothing of this was done before registering the FIR against Lal in 2018, the bench said: “Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty, treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.”
Going through the case files, the bench said that no investigation was carried out by the police and its charge sheet, a reproduction of FIR, concluded that the accused are guilty without furnishing any documentary evidence.
“The contents of the charge sheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond what was already stated in the subject FIR. We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be ‘proved’,” the bench said.
It reminded the investigating agency of its job to conduct an impartial investigation and leave it to the trial court to determine the guilt or the innocence of the accused.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared for Lal, pointed out that the FIR under Gangsters Act was based on three base FIRs registered in 2017 and while a gang requires more than one person co-accused Dutta is not named in any FIR.
The bench said, “This selective approach raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken under the Act of 1986.”
Most of the FIRs, Dave alleged, were either quashed or proceedings were stayed by the top court and the Allahabad High Court.
Dave also questioned the “mechanical” preparation of the gang-chart, highlighting how at every stage, the UP Gangster Rules 2021 stood violated.
The state, on the other hand, led by additional advocate general Garima Prashad, said that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and the petitioner has 32 criminal cases pending against him, where charge sheets have been filed.
Also Read | UP anti-conversion law aimed at maintaining public order: HC
Rule 5(3)(a) stipulates that a gang chart shall be approved only after due discussion in a joint meeting comprising the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, and Senior Superintendent of Police. The state failed to show any such discussion conducted before the chart was prepared.
Further, Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart and prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, Also, the chart must receive due consideration and satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, The court found no material to show such an exercise was done.
Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens…we would like to reiterate that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authority are not mere rubber-stamping entities.”
Also Read | Constitution does not protect forced or fraudulent conversion: Allahabad HC
Setting aside the HC orders, the bench held, “Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang chart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of 2021 Rules…Such a safeguard is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of the law and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect the rights and liberties of individuals.”
Holding that the investigation by the police only ignites “conjectures and surmises” without making out a prima facie case, the bench held that “continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law.”