The Delhi High Court has issued an order restraining the Delhi Police from taking coercive action against a man booked under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), following his challenge to the approval order authorising the application of the law against him. The man, identified as Amit, had been accused of being part of an organised network allegedly involved in the sale and distribution of heroin.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order on Tuesday after Amit’s counsels, Rahul Sharma and Kundan Kumar, argued that the essential requirement of “continuing unlawful activity” for invoking MCOCA was not met. They contended that the FIRs relied upon by the approving authority did not indicate the existence of an organised crime syndicate and that the very foundation for invoking the provisions of MCOCA was flawed.

Amit had been booked in March under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 111, which deals with organised crime, as well as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The police alleged that he ran an organised operation to sell and distribute heroin and heroin packets in the lanes around his residence, in collaboration with his son and other hired associates. During investigations, authorities reportedly seized 385.53 grams of heroin and 47.09 grams of Tramadol from the premises.

Following his arrest in March, Amit was granted bail on May 26. Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Western Range), Delhi, approved the invocation of Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA against Amit, his associates, and any other individuals identified during the course of investigation. The approval order alleged that Amit was involved in offences such as robbery, drug peddling, attempted murder, and extortion, and was engaged in organised criminal activities for pecuniary gain as part of a crime syndicate.

However, Amit challenged the approval order in court, seeking to quash the MCOCA case against him. In his petition, he claimed that the provisions of MCOCA were invoked maliciously, allegedly as a means to settle scores with his family members. He argued that the approval order was passed without due application of mind, and that the FIRs did not demonstrate the existence of a continuing unlawful activity required under MCOCA.

After considering Amit’s contentions, the Delhi High Court issued notice in his petition and directed the police not to take any coercive action against him under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA until further orders.

The court’s order stated:
“Issue notice. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA.”

The matter is scheduled to be next heard on December 2, 2025, when the court will consider the arguments regarding the validity of invoking MCOCA in this case.

This development comes amid increasing scrutiny over the use of stringent laws such as MCOCA in Delhi, especially when the accused argue that such provisions are applied without adequate evidence of organised crime or continuing unlawful activity. Legal experts note that MCOCA, designed to target organised crime syndicates and serious criminal networks, requires clear evidence that the accused is part of a continuing criminal enterprise. In cases where such evidence is lacking or disputed, courts have intervened to prevent potential misuse of the law.

In this instance, Amit’s counsel emphasized that the FIRs primarily described isolated incidents of drug possession and distribution, without substantiating claims of ongoing organised activity or syndicate-level operations. They argued that the police had relied on general allegations and assumptions, rather than concrete proof, to invoke the MCOCA provisions.

MCOCA is considered a powerful tool in combating organised crime and allows for more stringent measures, including extended detention and special bail conditions. However, critics have often argued that its misuse can have serious consequences for individuals who may not be genuinely involved in organised criminal activity. The Delhi High Court’s restraint order, in this context, reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the law is applied fairly and judiciously, balancing the need for strict action against organised crime with the rights of the accused.

The case also highlights the procedural safeguards built into the Indian legal system, wherein the invocation of laws such as MCOCA requires prior approval from designated authorities. Courts remain the final arbiter in reviewing whether such approvals meet legal standards, particularly the requirement of demonstrating continuing unlawful activity.

For Amit, the court’s interim order provides temporary relief from coercive measures, including arrests, raids, or other enforcement actions under MCOCA. The final hearing in December will determine whether the invocation of MCOCA against him was legally valid, or whether the case should revert to the standard provisions of the NDPS Act and related laws.

Legal observers are closely watching this case, as it could have broader implications for the application of MCOCA in Delhi, especially in cases involving narcotics and alleged organised crime networks in urban localities.