Public Security Act: State says petitioners must show ‘real grievance’

In its affidavit before the court, the state argued that the legislation cannot be decided “in vacuum”, contending that the petitioners have neither claimed that the legislature lacked competence to enact such a law nor demonstrated any legal injury arising from its provisions

MUMBAI: Defending the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, enacted to curb the activities of “left-wing extremist” organisations, the Maharashtra government told the Bombay High Court that the petitioners—the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India, and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC)—cannot challenge the legislation merely out of “curiosity or for academic exercise” and must demonstrate a real grievance or legal injury.

Public Security Act: State says petitioners must show ‘real grievance’

In its affidavit before the court, the state argued that the legislation cannot be decided “in vacuum”, contending that the petitioners have neither claimed that the legislature lacked competence to enact such a law nor demonstrated any legal injury arising from its provisions.

The affidavit, filed by deputy secretary, state home department Pritamkumar Jawale, stated that because of its high urban population, Maharashtra has become the centre of the Maoist urban network with no legal framework of a public security act to ban frontal organisations.

It said more than 15,000 written suggestions and objections were considered by the Joint Committee, and several provisions were subsequently changed. These changes included replacing references to “individuals and organisations” in the title and preamble with “left-wing extremist organization or similar organisations,” and changing the composition of the advisory board.

“Citizens or organisations who do not act under any design of threatening or weakening the nation need not have any cause of action to file such petitions,” it said, adding that the reference to “left wing extremist organisations” was deliberately retained because, according to the state, some organisations working for and under the influence of Maoist impact appear and act by misusing the name and titles of social organisations. Therefore, it said, such organisations having links or a nexus with unlawful activities “will have reference to left wing extremist organisations, and will not have reference to other organisations, carrying their social objects”.

On the challenge to freedom of speech and expression, assembly and association, the state said these rights are not absolute and are explicitly subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state and public order. It also clarified that the advisory board consists of a chairperson, who is or has been a high court judge, and two members, of which one shall be a retired district judge and the other the government pleader of the high court. Therefore, it has legally trained members capable of scrutinising state action, the affidavit added.

It also clarified that the Act provides for taking over possession and forfeiture of properties of unlawful organisations. These actions would obviously follow a lawful declaration by the state of an organisation as unlawful; therefore, actions would be taken without violating the proprietary right of an organisation declared unlawful.

The legislation, whose stated objective is to curb “urban naxalism” or frontal organisations of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), was passed unanimously by the Maharashtra legislature last year. Its objective is to curb “left-wing extremism,” the central government’s preferred term for Maoist/naxal activities.

The petitioners challenging the law, however, contend that it would “suppress constitutionally protected peaceful and legitimate dissent”. In its petition, the AITUC claimed the Act could target opposition parties, civil society groups and lawful dissent.