4 min readMumbaiJun 19, 2026 06:39 PM IST
First published on: Jun 19, 2026 at 06:39 PM IST
Claiming that it would “suppress constitutionally protected peaceful and legitimate dissent,” the state unit of the Congress and the Communist Party of India (CPI) have approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act.
As per the government, the law intends to “provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations.”
The legislation was passed by the Assembly in July last year and got the President’s assent in December 2025.
The law empowered the government to declare any suspect organisation as an “unlawful organisation” and laid down four offences under which an individual can be punished.
These offences include being a member of an unlawful organisation, and in the case of a non-member, raising funds for such an organisation, assisting in managing the organisation, or committing an “unlawful activity”.
The Congress, through its state President Harshwardhan Sapkal and General Secretary Dhananjay Shinde, along with CPI leader Prakash Reddy, on Thursday filed the writ plea in the high court claiming that the law confers “wide-ranging, arbitrary, and excessive powers” on the executive to ban and proscribe organisations “without any judicial scrutiny or oversight.”
The plea stated that Congress legislative party leader Satej Patil had given a dissent note against the Bill on behalf of the Opposition in July 2024; however, the grievances were not considered.
‘Law violated fundamental rights’
The plea alleged that the law violated fundamental guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution, as it permits banning of an organisation without giving it an opportunity of prior hearing and aids non-disclosure of the material forming the basis of the satisfaction of the executive to ban it. The petitioners claimed the law in question “permitted unilateral extension of a notification banning an organisation without any judicial review and without any recourse to challenge an executive order before independent courts/tribunals.”
Therefore, it is “having a chilling effect upon the constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, and associations/unions, co-operative societies guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution,” the plea claimed.
It is also argued that the MSPS Act granted “uncanalised and unrestricted powers” to the district magistrate and the police commissioners to notify and take possession of the premises, attach property, and evict persons residing in them “without hearing and without prescribing any fair, just, and reasonable procedure”. The petitioners also argued that the law fails to prescribe any mechanism for the return of the forfeited property, violating Article 300 A of the Constitution.
The plea, among other grounds seeking setting aside of the law, stated that it established a non-judicial Advisory Board consisting of government-appointed members tasked to determine the legality or illegality of the notification issued by the same government that appoints them and “whose proceedings lack the basic tenets of a judicial inquiry, thereby rendering the Impugned Act susceptible to abuse and capable of being used to suppress constitutionally protected peaceful and legitimate dissent.”
The plea sought direction from the high court to declare the MSPS Act to be “unconstitutional” and to restrain the state authorities from enforcing and taking coercive actions under the law. Pending the hearing of the plea in due course, the petitioners sought a stay on the enforcement of the MSPS Act.
File photo of the Bombay High Court. 
Share
