State Asks Bombay High Court to Dismiss Petitions Against Public Security Act
The Maharashtra government on Monday, August 10, 2026, urged the Bombay High Court in Mumbai to dismiss petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025. The state termed the legal challenges frivolous, while one of the judges on the division bench recused himself from hearing the matter.
The petitions were scheduled to be heard by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad. However, Justice Ankhad recused himself from the proceedings without assigning any reason. As a result, the pleas will now be assigned to another bench for hearing.
During the proceedings, Advocate General Milind Sathe, representing the state government, requested the court to dismiss the petitions. Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), countered the state's submission by stating that it was the legislation itself that was unconstitutional, rather than the petitions.
The legal challenges have been brought by the Maharashtra units of the Congress party and the Communist Party of India (CPI), alongside the AITUC. Senior advocate Gayatri Singh, representing Congress and the CPI, argued before the court that the law grants wide-ranging, arbitrary, and excessive powers to the executive branch to declare organisations unlawful without providing adequate judicial oversight or scrutiny.
The Maharashtra Special Public Security Act was passed by the state legislature in July 2025 and subsequently received assent from President Droupadi Murmu on December 15, 2025. Designed to prevent unlawful activities associated with Left Wing Extremist organisations, the law empowers the state government to declare any organisation unlawful if it is suspected of involvement in activities specified under the Act.
Under the provisions of the legislation, membership in an unlawful organisation is treated as a punishable offence. The law also criminalises raising funds, assisting in the management, or participating in unlawful activities for such groups. The petitioners have asked the court to strike down the legislation on the grounds that its definitions of 'unlawful organisation' and 'unlawful activity' are overly broad and vague, and have requested an interim order restraining the state from taking any coercive action under the Act while the petitions remain pending.
