Mumbai, September 8, 2026: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the Maharashtra government to file its reply to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, which gives the state wide powers to declare organisations unlawful and attach their properties.
A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata issued notice to the state while hearing petitions filed by the Maharashtra unit of the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). The court has kept the matter for hearing on October 6.
Petitioners Raise Constitutional Concerns
Senior Advocate Seervai, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that several provisions of the Act were “egregious” and gave authorities powers to confiscate houses and remove belongings without issuing prior notice.
He also pointed out that some of the provisions were similar to provisions that had been struck down by courts as far back as 1952. He argued that certain provisions suffered from vagueness and referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which dealt with the constitutional limits on vague restrictions on free speech.
The court observed that since formal notice had not been issued to the state, it would issue notice and allow the government to file its reply.
Challenge To Act’s Implementation
The petitioners have sought that the Act be struck down in its entirety and have also sought interim protection against its implementation and any coercive action under its provisions.
The Act was enacted to prevent unlawful activities of Left-wing extremist organisations. The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on July 10, 2025, followed by the Legislative Council on July 11. It received Presidential assent on December 15, 2025.
Concerns Over Sweeping Powers
The petitioners have alleged that the Act gives the executive sweeping and arbitrary powers based on vague definitions of “unlawful activity” and “unlawful organisation”. They contend that organisations can be declared unlawful without an effective opportunity of hearing or disclosure of the material relied upon by authorities.
Also Watch:
The plea further challenges provisions relating to passive membership, criminal liability without a requirement of intent and seizure of property, arguing that these provisions lack adequate safeguards and could affect fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
