Back
Justice Ankhad Recuses from MSPSA Challenge by Political Parties
Justice Gautam Ankhad of the on Monday recused himself from hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the . The petitions were filed by the , the , and the . The division bench, also comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge, directed the registry not to list the matters before any bench of which Justice Ankhad is a member, without disclosing the reason for recusal.
The recusal came during a hearing in which the petitioners argued that the MSPSA—described by critics as a draconian law aimed at curbing dissent—violates fundamental guarantees enshrined in , including the principles of , , and the . The petitions seek a declaration that the Act is to Articles 14, 19(1)(a) to 19(1)(c), 21, and 300A of .
The Controversial Act and Its Provisions
The MSPSA, enacted in 2025 by the , was originally proposed as a measure to combat left-wing extremism and what the state termed “urban Naxals.” However, its broad provisions have drawn widespread criticism. The Act defines certain activities by individuals or organizations as “unlawful,” including any action or speech that constitutes a danger to public order, incites violence, disrupts communication, or encourages disobedience to established law and its institutions. It empowers the state government to designate an organization as unlawful, take possession of its property, and forfeit funds and assets. Additionally, the Act allows district magistrates and police commissioners to notify and take possession of premises, attach movable and immovable property, and evict occupants without a prior hearing.
The petitioners contend that the Act confers sweeping, arbitrary, and excessive powers on the executive, enabling bans on organizations without judicial scrutiny or oversight. The vague and overbroad definitions of “unlawful activity” and “unlawful organisation,” they argue, have a on constitutionally protected rights.
Grounds Raised by the Petitioners
In the plea filed by the INC’s Maharashtra unit and its leaders, the petitioners assert that the MSPSA violates the guarantee of under . The plea states:
“This Act violates the guarantee of under by permitting the banning of an organisation without affording a prior hearing or disclosing the material forming the basis of the of the executive and by permitting unilateral extension of a notification banning an organisation without any and without any recourse to challenge an executive order before independent courts or tribunals.”
Furthermore, the Act penalizes and criminalizes even persons who are not members of banned organizations merely based on suspicion or . This, the petitioners argue, criminalizes beliefs and thoughts and creates penal offenses in the absence of the essential ingredient of . They also object to the “un canalised and unrestricted” powers conferred on district magistrates and police commissioners to take possession of premises and evict residents without a fair, just, or reasonable procedure, and without any mechanism for the return of forfeited property, thereby violating .
The petitions therefore seek a declaration that the MSPSA is unconstitutional, a directive to the state not to enforce the Act or take coercive action against anyone until the pleas are heard, and an interim stay on its operation.
The Hearing and Recusal
When the matter came up before the division bench on Monday, Maharashtra’s Advocate General, , urged the court to dismiss the petitions, labeling them “frivolous.” Senior advocate , representing the AITUC, countered sharply, asserting that it is the MSPSA that is “frivolous” and “unconstitutional,” not the petitions.
However, before any arguments on the merits could proceed, Justice Ankhad announced that he would recuse himself from hearing the case. The bench did not assign a reason for the recusal, a common practice in such situations to maintain judicial impartiality. The court then passed an order directing the registry not to list the petitions before any bench of which Justice Ankhad is a member. The matter will now be heard by a different bench.
Legal Implications and Significance
The recusal, while routine in some respects, highlights the politically sensitive nature of the case. The MSPSA has been a lightning rod for criticism from opposition parties and civil liberties groups, who argue that it is a tool to suppress dissent and target political opponents. The petitions are among the first major challenges to the statute, and their outcome could have far-reaching consequences for the balance between national security and fundamental rights in Maharashtra.
The legal questions raised are not new—courts have repeatedly struck down or narrowed similar and anti-terror laws when they fail to provide adequate . The has consistently emphasized that any restriction on fundamental rights must be reasonable, proportionate, and subject to . The MSPSA’s lack of prior notice, absence of a hearing, and reliance on the “ ” of the executive are likely to be scrutinized under these principles.
For the legal community, the case will serve as a test of how far the state can go in restricting civil liberties in the name of public order. It also raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in checking executive overreach, particularly when legislation is enacted with broad, ambiguous language that leaves room for abuse.
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Proceedings
The recusal itself does not affect the merits of the case, but it does delay the hearing. The petitions remain pending before the High Court, and the next bench will take up the matter. Should the court refuse to stay the Act, organizations and individuals may face immediate consequences under its provisions. Conversely, a stay would provide temporary relief while the constitutional questions are examined.
Legal scholars and practitioners will be watching closely to see how the court addresses the arguments regarding , the , and the under . The case also has implications for other states considering similar legislation, as the MSPSA could serve as a model—or a warning—for future public security laws.
Conclusion
Justice Ankhad’s recusal is a procedural development, but it underscores the high stakes involved. The constitutional challenge to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act raises fundamental questions about the limits of state power and the protection of individual freedoms. As the petitions move to a new bench, the legal community will await a substantive hearing that could define the contours of public security law in India.
The case is set to continue, with the petitioners seeking an interim stay and a final declaration that the Act is unconstitutional. The outcome will likely resonate far beyond Maharashtra, influencing how similar laws are drafted and challenged across the country.
