Maharashtra cites 64 Maoist front organisations to defend security law in HC

• Maharashtra cited 64 active Maoist front organisations in its defence of the Special Public Security Act before the Bombay High Court

• The government said the law was necessary to tackle extremist networks; petitioners challenged its provisions as vague and excessively broad

• The court granted the petitioners time to respond to the government’s affidavit

The Maharashtra government has defended the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act before the Bombay High Court, citing Union home ministry data that it said identified 64 active Maoist front organisations in the state — the highest number in the country.

In an affidavit filed on Tuesday, the government described Maharashtra as a “focal point for urban Maoist activities” and argued that the spread of such networks required a dedicated law to prevent and address unlawful, subversive and extremist activities.

The affidavit was submitted in response to petitions filed by Congress, the Communist Party of India and social activists challenging the legislation. The petitioners contend that the Act gives the executive excessive powers through vaguely defined offences and provisions governing the designation of unlawful organisations.

Defending the legislation, the government said it sought to balance fundamental freedoms with the state’s responsibility to maintain public order and safeguard national integrity. It argued that the growing presence of extremist networks made a special legal framework necessary.

The government also sought dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the petitioners had not suffered any direct legal injury.

A bench comprising Chief Justice M.C. Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna granted the petitioners time to file a rejoinder to the affidavit.

Passed by the state Assembly last July and granted presidential assent in December, the Act provides for the prevention of certain unlawful activities involving Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar bodies.

Its provisions cover membership of an unlawful organisation, raising funds for such a body without being a member, assisting in its management and committing unlawful activities. The legislation also authorises the state government to declare an organisation unlawful.

The petitioners have challenged these powers, arguing that broad and unclear definitions allow the executive to ban organisations and attach their properties arbitrarily. Their pleas question whether the scope of the law and the discretion it grants the government are consistent with constitutional protections.

With IANS inputs