Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the Indian National Congress, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) to furnish details of their registration, constitution and office-bearers before it proceeds to hear their petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna sought the details after briefly hearing senior advocate Navroz Seervai, who commenced arguments on behalf of AITUC.

“We want to see the credentials of the petitioners before proceeding to hear the matter on merits. Please furnish all these details and let us be very clear, in absence of such details, we will not proceed further,” Chief Justice Tripathi orally observed.

Seervai argued that the provisions of the MSPSA had deliberately been kept vague, which could result in the exercise of powers by authorities having a chilling effect on citizens' fundamental rights.

He submitted that the law had been introduced to penalise activities of Left-Wing Extremists and Naxals, both in urban and rural areas.

Questioning the necessity of the legislation, Seervai referred to the Prime Minister's statement that his government had eliminated Naxalism across India, including Maharashtra.

“What was the need then to bring such a law? This is nothing but an excuse to target the legitimate dissent… Reality is they (Government) do not want dissent at all,” he submitted.

The senior advocate further contended that the MSPSA is more stringent than the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), pointing out that it also provided for the demolition of properties belonging to individuals.

Illustrating the potential chilling effect of the legislation, Seervai submitted that people might be reluctant to provide venues for meetings for fear of action under the Act.

“Suppose someone wants to hold a meeting, no one will give them their hall or spaces to hold the meetings fearing action under this Act,” he argued.

After hearing the submissions briefly, the bench said it first wanted to examine the credentials of the organisations that had approached the court.

“We want to see the objective of filing these petitions so that we are clear that who the petitioner is… Thus, we want to know your credentials before proceeding further,” the Chief Justice orally remarked.

The court adjourned the matter after directing the petitioners to furnish the requisite organisational details before the challenge to the legislation is taken up further.

Earlier, the Maharashtra Government defended its decision to enact the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA) stating that because of its highest urban population, the State has become a 'centre' for Maoist urban network and thus in absence of legal framework to ban such 'left wing extremist' organisations, it has come up with this law as done by States like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

The State's affidavit cited various instances particularly, the caste-based riots infamously known as the Bhima-Koregaon Violence which broke out across Maharashtra on January 01, 2018.

It stated that the arrest of the 'central committee' members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI-M) in Elgar Parishad, brought national focus on 'Urban Activities' of 'Urban Maoists.' The documents seized in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, exposed depth of their network, men and material resources and frontal organisations working for Maoist strategy, the State pointed out. 

Tags: