The Bombay High Court directed petitioners challenging Maharashtra's security law to prove their authority. The requirement delays consideration of claims that the Act threatens dissent and fundamental rights.
Stock photo used for illustration
Mumbai,Oct 16, 2026 21:32 IST
The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned whether the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act had the authority to represent their organisations, news agency Press Trust of India reported.
The petitions were filed by the Congress, the Communist Party of India and a few social activists, who claimed the law would “suppress constitutionally protected peaceful and legitimate dissent”.
A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna directed the petitioners to submit documents establishing their credentials and authority to represent the organisations.
According to PTI, the court sought registration certificates, the names of office-bearers and the constitutions of the organisations represented by the petitioners. “We want to see who you are representing,” the Chief Justice said.
The bench indicated that it would not examine the merits of the petitions without the necessary documents.
The Act seeks to prevent “unlawful activities” by Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar groups. It criminalises membership of an unlawful organisation. A person who is not a member can also be punished for raising funds for such an organisation or helping manage it.
The law also empowers the state government to declare any suspected organisation an “unlawful organisation”.
Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the term “urban Naxalism” was being used as a pretext to target legitimate democratic activities and dissent.
He said the Act's provisions were drastic and could create fear among people seeking to organise meetings or express their views.
“If a government, in its subjective satisfaction, believes that those holding a meeting are left-wing, then those people's houses can be expropriated,” Seervai argued.
He also questioned the basis for identifying individuals or organisations as left-wing, pointing out that neither left-wing nor right-wing ideology was prohibited by the Constitution.
The petitions alleged that the Act gave the executive “wide-ranging, arbitrary and excessive powers” to ban organisations and attach their properties based on vague and overly broad definitions of unlawful activity and unlawful organisation.
The petitioners asked the High Court to declare the Act unconstitutional and in violation of fundamental rights. They also sought an interim stay on its enforcement until the court decides the matter.
The court scheduled the next hearing for October 22. It will consider the challenge to the Act after the petitioners submit documents establishing their credentials and authority to represent their organisations.
- Ends