Bombay HC Judge Recuses Himself from Hearing Maharashtra Public Security Act Pleas

Justice Gautam Ankhad of the Bombay High Court recused himself on Monday, August 10, 2026, from a division bench scheduled to hear petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA), 2025. Following the recusal, the bench, which also included Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge, directed the court registry not to list the petitions before any division bench that includes Justice Ankhad.

The petitions have been filed by political parties and trade unions, including the Indian National Congress, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The petitioners are seeking a court declaration that the MSPSA is unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 21, and 300A of the Constitution.

During Monday's court proceedings, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe urged the bench to dismiss the petitions, arguing that they were without merit. Senior advocate Navroze Seervai, representing the AITUC, countered the submission by stating that the MSPSA itself was without merit and violated constitutional provisions.

The filed petitions contend that the MSPSA grants extensive powers to the executive branch, allowing for the banning of organisations without judicial oversight. The petitioners argue that the Act's definitions of 'unlawful activity' and 'unlawful organisation' are vague and overly broad, creating a chilling effect on constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly.

The pleas also allege that the law violates due process under Article 21 by permitting organisation bans without prior hearings or disclosure of underlying evidence. Additionally, the petitions challenge provisions allowing the unilateral extension of ban notifications without judicial review or recourse to independent courts or tribunals.

According to the document submitted by the INC, the law criminalises non-members based on suspicion or association without requiring mens rea. The petitioners further object to powers given to District Magistrates and Police Commissioners to attach property, seize premises, and evict individuals without hearings or procedures for returning forfeited property. The petitioners have requested an interim stay on the enforcement of the Act and coercive action while the case remains pending.