Maharashtra has asked the Bombay High Court to turn away, at the threshold, the challenge to the Special Public Security Act, contending in an affidavit that the petitioners have no locus and that the State has the highest number of Maoist frontal organisations in the country.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Mumbai: Defending the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025 against challenges by the Congress and the Communist Party of India, the State government has told the Bombay High Court in an affidavit that Maharashtra has 64 Maoist frontal organisations, the highest in the country [Indian National Congress and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
The State Home Department filed the affidavit on October 6, 2026, in response to petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Act. The Court has not ruled on the challenge. What follows are the State’s contentions, and the petitioners’ case is yet to be decided.
An objection at the threshold
The State wants the petitions dismissed without a hearing on the law itself, contending that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the constitutional validity of an enactment:
A person cannot file a petition challenging constitutional validity for his curiosity or for academic exercise and must have a real grievance and legal injury to maintain a petition.
The numbers the State relies on
Drawing on Ministry of Home Affairs data, the State put the figures this way:
Maharashtra has highest number of frontal organization (64) in country, whereas state like Andhra Pradesh (19 – banned 7), Telangana (out of 29 – banned 7), Chhattisgarh (11 – banned 11), Odisha (7 – banned 7), Jharkhand (14 – banned 14).
Maharashtra’s large urban population, the State said, has made it the centre of the Maoist urban network. Unlike neighbouring States, it added, Maharashtra previously had no specific public security law to outlaw frontal groups, and Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines required States to enact such legislation to be covered under the Security Related Expenditure scheme.
How the State defends the Act
The affidavit describes the Act as a robust framework against unlawful, subversive and extremist activities:
It balances the fundamental liberties of citizens with the paramount duty of preserving public order and national integrity.
On the charge that the law was passed without public input, the State said a joint committee went through over 15,000 written objections before amending key terms and adding safeguards. It also relied on a 2020 central framework aimed at countering urban Maoist networks through financial choking and bans on front organisations.
What remains to be decided
The affidavit lays out the State’s factual and legal defence at the start of a challenge by two political parties to a law that allows the banning of organisations. The petitioners’ arguments, including on the Act’s breadth and its effect on fundamental rights, are yet to be heard, and the Court has decided neither the maintainability of the petitions nor their merits.
Case Title: Indian National Congress and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Date of Affidavit: October 6, 2026
Appearances: not stated