Bombay HC judge recuses from plea challenging Maharashtra public security law
A Bombay High Court judge on Monday recused himself from hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025
A Bombay High Court judge on Monday recused himself from hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, which gives the state powers to declare certain organisations unlawful and take action against them. Justice Gautam A Ankhad withdrew from the case when the petition filed by the Indian Congress and the Communist Party of India came up before a bench also comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge. The reason for the recusal was not stated in the court proceedings. Read Full Story The petitions challenge several provisions of the law, arguing that they give the government broad and arbitrary powers to declare organisations unlawful, attach their properties and initiate criminal proceedings.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? The Act aims to prevent what it describes as unlawful activities by Left Wing Extremist organisations and similar groups. The Maharashtra Assembly passed the Bill on July 10, 2025, followed by the Legislative Council on July 11. It received the President's assent on December 15, 2025. The Congress and CPI have argued that the law allows organisations to be declared unlawful without adequate notice, a proper opportunity to present their case or access to the material on which the government's decision is based. They have also questioned the advisory board set up under the Act, arguing that it is not an independent judicial body because its members are appointed by the government.
The petitioners have asked the High Court to stop the authorities from enforcing the law or taking coercive action under it while their challenge is pending. CONCERNS OVER DISSENT AND EXISTING LAWS The parties have also argued that the Act overlaps with existing legislation, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and in some areas goes beyond them. They have expressed concern that the law could potentially be used against political parties, civil society organisations, trade unions and other groups involved in lawful dissent. The petitioners have further challenged provisions that they claim could make even association with an organisation later declared unlawful a criminal offence.
They have also objected to references to a person's alleged “tendency” towards unlawful activity. According to the petition, some provisions do not require authorities to establish criminal intent or a direct link between the alleged conduct and actual violence or public disorder. The petitioners argue that this could discourage people from exercising their rights to free speech, peaceful assembly and association. The Maharashtra government has opposed the petitions and urged the High Court to dismiss them, calling the challenges “frivolous”. Following Justice Ankhad's recusal, the court said a similar petition filed by the All India Trade Union Congress would also be placed before another bench. Ends
The BriefWire