Credentials first, merits later: the Bombay High Court wants the Indian National Congress, PUCL and AITUC to place their registration certificates, constitutions and office-bearers on record before it hears the challenge to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday (October 16) told the Indian National Congress, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) to furnish their registration certificates, constitutions and names of office-bearers before their petitions against the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025 (MSPSA) are heard on merits. The direction followed brief arguments on the constitutional validity of the Act; the Court said it first wanted to examine the petitioners’ credentials, and adjourned the matter [Indian National Congress and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
The petitions were heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
Why the Bench asked for credentials
Explaining the direction, the Chief Justice orally remarked:
We want to see the objective of filing these petitions so that we are clear that who the petitioner is… Thus, we want to know your credentials before proceeding further.
The arguments made before the direction
Before the Bench turned to credentials, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for AITUC, had argued that the provisions of the Act have deliberately been kept vague, and that the use of powers under them would have a chilling effect on citizens’ fundamental rights.
Seervai said the law targets the activities of Left Wing Extremists and Naxals, both urban and rural. Pointing to the Prime Minister’s statement that Naxalism had been wiped out across India, including Maharashtra, he questioned the need for the law and argued that it would be used against legitimate dissent. He also argued that the MSPSA is more drastic than the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provides for demolition of individuals’ properties, and said people may refuse to provide halls or spaces for meetings for fear of action under the Act.
At this stage the Bench set these contentions aside and directed the petitioners to place their credentials on record first. The petitioners’ contentions and the State’s defence are yet to be tested, and the Court has expressed no view on the validity of the Act.
The State’s reply, and its objection on standing
The State has defended the law in its reply, telling the High Court that Maharashtra has become a centre of an urban Maoist network that works through logistical support, safe houses, financial channels and front organisations, and not only through armed cadres. It says the Act is aimed at such unlawful activities before they result in violence or public disorder, and not at groups pursuing legitimate social objectives.
In an affidavit filed on October 6, the State Home Department also objected at the threshold that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the Act, contending that a petitioner must show a real grievance and legal injury, and put the number of Maoist frontal organisations in Maharashtra at 64, the highest in the country. The State has pointed to similar laws on unlawful organisations in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Advocate General Milind Sathe has called the petitions frivolous and sought their dismissal. The Court’s direction on credentials comes after that objection to the petitioners’ locus.
What the Act provides, and who has challenged it
The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the MSPSA on July 10, 2025 and the Legislative Council the next day; it received Presidential assent on December 15, 2025. The State says it is meant to prevent the unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations. It allows the government to declare an organisation unlawful, makes membership of and assistance to such organisations an offence, and provides for taking over premises used for unlawful activities and attaching property.
Petitions against it have been filed by the Maharashtra unit of the Congress, the Communist Party of India, PUCL and AITUC. They argue that the definitions of “unlawful activity” and “unlawful organisation” are vague and overbroad, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India on vague penal provisions, that organisations can be declared unlawful without an effective hearing or disclosure of the material against them, and that the property provisions lack safeguards.
They seek to have the Act struck down and ask that no coercive action be taken under it while the petitions are pending. The pleas were earlier before a Bench from which Justice Gautam Ankhad recused himself without giving reasons.
Standing now, validity later
A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute is ordinarily brought under Article 226 by a person or body whose rights are affected, and courts often examine the standing and bona fides of petitioners, particularly where the challenge is in the nature of public interest litigation. On the merits, the petitions will turn on whether the restrictions the Act places on speech, assembly and association fall within the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2) to (4), and whether its procedure meets the fairness standards of Articles 14 and 21.
Case Title: Indian National Congress and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [Writ Petition No. 2981 of 2026 and connected matters]
Bench: Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, Bombay High Court
Date of Hearing: October 16, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for AITUC