Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
Maharashtra has the country’s highest number of Maoist front organisations at 64, the state government told the Bombay High Court while defending its public security law and seeking dismissal of petitions filed by the Congress and the Communist Party of India.
Citing Union Home Ministry data, the Home Department said in an affidavit that the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, was necessary to tackle unlawful, subversive and extremist activities.
advertisement
The two political parties have challenged the law’s constitutional validity, arguing that it is overly broad and arbitrary. They say it gives the executive sweeping powers to ban organisations and attach property without adequate judicial oversight.
STATE CITES MAOIST NETWORKS
The affidavit listed 29 Maoist front organisations in Telangana, 19 in Andhra Pradesh, 14 in Jharkhand, 11 in Chhattisgarh and seven in Odisha, compared with Maharashtra’s 64.
It said seven organisations each had been banned in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, while all those listed in Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand had been banned.
The government claimed Maharashtra’s large urban population had made it a centre for Maoist urban networks. Unlike neighbouring states, it said, Maharashtra previously lacked a specific public security law to ban such organisations.
The affidavit cited a 2020 central framework aimed at countering urban Maoist networks by cutting off funding and banning front organisations.
The state also said central guidelines required such legislation for inclusion in the Security Related Expenditure scheme, which provides funds for counter-Maoist operations.
STATE DEFENDS LAW’S SAFEGUARDS
The Act was passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in July 2025 and received Presidential assent in December that year.
Rejecting the petitioners’ allegations that the law violates fundamental rights, the state said it balances citizens’ liberties with the duty to preserve public order and national integrity.
The government also disputed allegations that the law was passed without public consultation. It said a joint committee reviewed more than 15,000 written objections before amending key terms and incorporating legal safeguards.
The state argued that the petitioners had not shown a specific grievance or legal injury that entitled them to challenge the Act.
“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,” it said.
The affidavit described the alleged violations of fundamental rights as misconceived and sought dismissal of the petitions.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
