Show your credentials: HC to Congress, others challenging Maharashtra security law

The direction comes after the Maharashtra government questioned the petitioners' legal standing to challenge the law, arguing that they had not established how it had caused them a specific grievance or legal injury.

In Short

• Court orders petitioners to file credentials and authorising documents by October 22
• State questions whether petitioners faced specific grievance or legal injury
• AITUC's counsel tells the court that public security law targets dissent

The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the Congress, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) to establish their credentials before it hears their petitions challenging the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act.

The bench of Chief Justice MC Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna directed the petitioners to submit their registration certificates, details of current office-bearers, constitutions and resolutions authorising the petitions by October 22.

“We want to see the credentials of the petitioners before proceeding to hear the matter on merits. Please furnish all these details and let us be very clear in absence of such details, we will not proceed further,” the bench said.

The direction comes after the Maharashtra government questioned the petitioners’ legal standing to challenge the law, arguing that they had not established how it had caused them a specific grievance or legal injury.

‘LAW BROUGHT TO DEAL WITH DISSENT’

During the hearing, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, representing AITUC, questioned the government’s justification for the law. He argued that while the Centre claimed Naxalism had been eradicated, the state’s affidavit cited growing Naxalism as the reason for introducing the legislation.

Seervai contended that the law was intended to target dissent. The bench then sought details of the petitioners’ credentials, saying it wanted clarity on who they were and their objectives in filing the challenges.

Advocate General Milind Sathe pointed out that the state had raised the same question in its affidavit.

Seervai responded that he wanted the Maharashtra government itself to say it did not know AITUC, citing the trade union’s participation in the freedom movement.

The court said it would hear arguments on merits only after the petitioners furnished the documents.

STATE CITES 64 MAOIST FRONT ORGANISATIONS

In its affidavit, the state defended the Act as necessary to tackle unlawful, subversive and extremist activities. Citing Union Home Ministry data, it said Maharashtra had 64 Maoist front organisations, the highest number in the country.

This compared with 29 in Telangana, 19 in Andhra Pradesh, 14 in Jharkhand, 11 in Chhattisgarh and seven in Odisha, according to the affidavit.

The government said seven organisations each had been banned in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, while all those listed in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha had been banned.

It argued that Maharashtra’s large urban population had made it a centre for Maoist urban networks, but the state had lacked a specific public security law to ban such organisations.

The affidavit also cited a 2020 central framework to counter urban Maoist networks by cutting off funding and banning front organisations. It said central guidelines required such legislation for inclusion in the Security Related Expenditure scheme, which funds counter-Maoist operations.

SWEEPING POWERS OR NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS?

The petitioners argue that the law is overly broad and arbitrary, giving the executive sweeping powers to ban organisations and attach property without adequate judicial oversight.

The state has rejected those allegations, saying the Act balances fundamental rights with the need to maintain public order and national integrity.

It also disputed claims that the legislation lacked public consultation. A joint committee examined more than 15,000 written objections before key terms were amended and safeguards added, the government said.

The Act was passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in July 2025 and received Presidential assent that December.

Seeking dismissal of the petitions, the state argued that a constitutional challenge must arise from a real grievance or legal injury rather than curiosity or an academic exercise.

- Ends