Maharashtra has most Maoist frontal groups: State defends Special Public Security Act in Bombay High Court

Maharashtra tops the country with 64 Maoist frontal organizations, the State government said in an affidavit before the Bombay High Court defending Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025. [Indian National Congress & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The affidavit filed on October 6 cited data from the Ministry of Home Affairs which claimed that other States reported significantly lower numbers. 

“Maharashtra has highest number of frontal organization (64) in country, whereas state like Andhra Pradesh (19 - banned 7), Telangana (out of 29 - banned 7), Chhattisgarh (11 - banned 11), Odisha (7 - banned 7), Jharkhand (14 - banned 14),” the affidavit stated. 

The affidavit came in response to petitions filed by Congress and Communist Party of India challenging the constitutional validity of the 2025 Act. 

The affidavit by the State Home Department emphasised that because of its high urban population, Maharashtra has become the centre of Maoist urban network.

Unlike neighbouring States, Maharashtra previously lacked a specific public security law to outlaw these frontal groups. MHA guidelines also mandated enactment of legislation by State to be included in the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme. The scheme included funds vital to counter Maoist operations. 

The State authorities explained that the Act is a robust legal framework to prevent and tackle unlawful, subversive and extremist activities. 

“It balances the fundamental liberties of citizens with the paramount duty of preserving public order and national integrity,” the affidavit said. 

The affidavit highlighted a 2020 central framework aimed at countering urban Maoist networks through financial choking and front-organization bans. 

The State also rejected claims that the law was passed without public input. It pointed out that a joint committee reviewed “over 15,000” written objections before amending key terms and incorporating legal safeguards.

The State described the statute as “a well-structured mechanism designed to protect the democratic fabric from extremist organisations, hidden groups or people who try to secretly destroy or weaken the nation while pretending to follow rules.”

Hence, it urged the High Court to dismiss the challenge at the outset. The government asserted that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the constitutional validity of an enactment.

“A person cannot file a petition challenging constitutional validity for his curiosity or for academic exercise and must have a real grievance and legal injury to maintain a petition,” the State said.