State calls petitions challenging Special Public Security Act ‘frivolous’, urges HC to dismiss them

MUMBAI: The State government on Monday urged the Bombay High Court to dismiss the petitions filed by the Congress, CPI, and All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), which challenge the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, terming them “frivolous”

MUMBAI: The State government on Monday urged the Bombay High Court to dismiss the petitions filed by the Congress, CPI, and All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), which challenge the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, terming them “frivolous”.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

The legislation, whose stated objective is to curb ‘urban naxalism’ or frontal organisations of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), was passed unanimously in the legislative assembly in July last year. It aims to enact a special law to curb ‘left-wing extremism’ - the central government’s preferred term for Maoist/Naxal activities.

The petitioners challenged the enactment, contending 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. The plea stated, “Under the guise of protecting public security, the Act introduces sweeping, over-broad, and unconstitutional restrictions upon the freedom of speech, association and assembly, the right to personal liberty and the right to property.”

Advocate General Milind Sathe, representing the state, said the petitions were “frivolous” and sought their dismissal. But, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, representing the AITUC, said the law in question was “frivolous” apart from being “unconstitutional”.

The division bench of acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, however, recused itself from hearing the petitions. The petitions would now be placed for hearing before some other bench.