The Maharashtra government has filed an affidavit in the Bombay High Court to defend the constitutional validity of the 2025 Public Security Act. The state claims the law is essential to dismantle 64 identified Maoist front organizations and secure federal funding. Opposition parties have challenged the Act, arguing that it grants the government excessive and arbitrary powers, creating a major legal battle over state oversight.
On October 6, 2026, the Maharashtra government submitted a formal affidavit to the Bombay High Court, defending the legal standing of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025. The state government argued that the legislation is a vital tool for maintaining public order, specifically citing the presence of 64 Maoist front organizations, which it identified as the highest concentration of such groups in India.
Beyond security concerns, the government emphasized that this legislative framework is necessary for compliance with central government guidelines established in 2020. A significant aspect of the state’s position is fiscal; the legislation serves as a requirement to access federal funds under the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme. These funds are critical for the state to support its ongoing counter-insurgency operations and infrastructure needs.
The government’s move comes in response to legal challenges filed by the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (CPI), and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). These petitioners have urged the High Court to strike down the Act, contending that it grants the executive branch broad and arbitrary powers. They argue that the law allows the government to ban organizations and seize property without sufficient judicial review, which they claim poses a risk to civil liberties and legitimate political dissent.
In its defense, the state government maintained that the law underwent a transparent and inclusive legislative process. The affidavit notes that a joint committee processed over 15,000 written objections before the Act received Presidential assent in December 2025. Addressing the constitutional challenge, the state has requested that the High Court dismiss the petitions at the threshold, arguing that the challengers have failed to demonstrate the specific legal injury required to contest the Act’s validity.
The proceedings remain an important regulatory monitorable. The court's final decision will be significant, as it could set a precedent for how similar security legislations are structured and implemented across other Indian states. Investors and observers will track the court’s upcoming hearings, as the outcome may impact the state's access to federal funding and influence the broader legal landscape regarding public security regulations.