Congress, CPI move Bombay High Court against Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025

The Indian National Congress (Maharashtra unit) and the Communist Party of India have approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025. [Indian National Congress (Maharashtra State) & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors].As per the notification, the Act claims to provide “effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organizations or similar organizations and for matters connected to it”. The Bill was passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on July 10, 2025 and by the Legislative Council the next day. It was officially cleared for implementation by the President on December 15, 2025..The petition assails the Act as illegal and unconstitutional, alleging that it confers wide-ranging, arbitrary and excessive powers on the executive to ban organisations and attach property on the basis of vague definitions of unlawful activity and unlawful organisation. “The said Act infringes the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Constitution…thereby 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 petition claimed. It claims that the Act allows banning of organisations without prior hearing or full disclosure of material and establishes a non‑judicial advisory board, which purportedly lacks independence from the government that appoints it. .The parties also claim that the Act duplicates and goes beyond existing Central and State security laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), and can be used to target opposition parties, civil society groups and lawful dissent.The plea has raised grievance that the statute lowers the criminal threshold by criminalising mere association, tendency towards unlawful acts and even passive membership of an organisation later declared unlawful. Additionally, it challenges the provisions of the Act that dispenses with the requirement of intention and proximate link to violence or disorder. .The petitioners seek a declaration that the 2025 Act is unconstitutional and the quashing of the entire Act. Till the petition is finally heard, the plea has sought for an order restraining the State from enforcing the statute or taking any coercive action under the Act.