The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Government over the alleged misuse of the Goonda Act, observing that cases coming before it indicate the state appears determined to use the stringent law as a tool of harassment.A Lucknow Bench comprising Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said the Goonda Act was a “very powerful” piece of legislation and must be invoked with great caution, only in clear cases and for the maintenance of public order.The court made the observations while quashing an order of the Gonda District Magistrate (DM) declaring Zahid Ali a “goonda” and externing him from the district for six months.The court also set aside an appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which had upheld the DM’s decision.The Gonda DM had issued the order on May 11 under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, relying on two criminal cases and a beat information report. One of the criminal cases dated back to 2010 and the other to 2020.The high court found that Ali had already been acquitted in the 2010 case by the Gonda Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 26, 2017. It observed that a case in which a person had already been acquitted could not subsequently be used as a ground to declare him a goonda.The court further noted that there was a gap of nearly six years between the 2020 criminal case and the 2026 order declaring Ali a goonda. It said no rational nexus could be established between the two.The high court also took exception to the police report’s reference to the case in which Ali had already been acquitted, observing that it indicated an incorrect picture of the petitioner had been placed before the DM.The court said mere involvement in a single criminal case registered in 2020 could not establish that Ali was a habitual offender or that he habitually committed or abetted offences.The Bench also refused to accept the beat information report as a valid basis for invoking the Goonda Act.No criminal case had been registered on the basis of the information, nor had Ali been given an opportunity to be heard in relation to it. Relying on such material, the court said, would violate the principles of natural justice.