The judgment was delivered in the consolidated cases of Shiv Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Himanshu Srivastava vs State of U.P., with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran authoring the opinion.
The Court held that the Act fails to create a criminal offence because the definition of a “gangster” and the determination of guilt are left to executive rule‑making, a function the Court said belongs exclusively to the legislature.
Citing the constitutional principle of legality – nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege – the judges noted that Article 20(1) of the Constitution protects individuals from conviction for conduct that was not an offence at the time it was committed, and that the General Clauses Act requires a clear statutory definition of an offence before punishment can be imposed.
The justices warned that delegating the creation of crime to subordinate legislation allows the executive to punish individuals on the basis of its “ipse dixit”, especially through the Act’s provision for preparing a “gang chart” that can label a person a gangster without verifiable evidence.
By declaring the Act “still‑born”, the Supreme Court effectively invalidated it and barred any ongoing or future prosecutions under its provisions, signalling a need for Parliament to draft a new, constitutionally sound framework if it wishes to address organised crime in the state.
Legal scholars cited in the judgment, such as Professor Herbert L. Packer, have long argued that defining crime is a core legislative function, with courts playing a secondary role. The Court’s decision reinforces that doctrine and underscores the importance of detailed legislative debate over criminal law.