The affidavit seeks dismissal of petitions challenging the Act's constitutional validity, and questions the petitioners' legal standing. (File photo)Maharashtra, “because of its highest urban population has become center of Maoist urban network,” the state government has told the Bombay High Court, defending the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Act.The state “did not have legal framework of public security act to ban frontal organization like other Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected states (Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh),” said the affidavit filed by Pritamkumar Jawale, Deputy Secretary of the state Home department.The affidavit seeks dismissal of petitions by the Congress, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) challenging the Act’s constitutional validity, and questions the petitioners’ legal standing. It says the law was enacted “to establish a robust legal framework to prevent and tackle unlawful, subversive, and extremist activities.”The petitioners contend the law curbs peaceful and legitimate dissent and gives the executive “wide-ranging, arbitrary, and excessive powers” to ban organisations “without any judicial scrutiny or oversight.”The Act lists four punishable offences: being a member of an unlawful organisation, collecting funds for one, helping manage one, or carrying out an “unlawful activity”. It authorises the state to notify any suspected body as an “unlawful organisation”.Citing Elgaar Parishad and other cases, the affidavit claimed Maharashtra has the highest number of frontal organisations in the country, 64. It said Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand had banned such groups under similar laws that “withstood judicial scrutiny”, so Maharashtra was empowered to enact one for “local security environments”.Not enacting the law, it said, “would affect entitlement of security related expenditure (SRE) fund crucial for fighting Maoist battle” in LWE-affected areas.Story continues below this adThe state said the law was not vague and did not violate free speech, which is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Constitution. It “balances the fundamental liberties of citizens with the paramount duty of preserving public order and national integrity,” the reply said.The state also denied that appointing a government advocate to the “non-judicial advisory board” was illegal.The Act bridges “a critical legislative gap” by allowing action before any violence or loss of life, it said, as insurgencies “survive not only on ideology; but they require robust logistical supply chains, safe houses, covert financial pipelines, and institutional fronts.”A bench led by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi allowed the petitioners to file a rejoinder to the affidavit and posted the matter for hearing on October 16Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read MoreStay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram