Justice Gautam Ankhad of the Bombay High Court withdrew from hearing petitions challenging the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025. The move affects petitions filed by major political parties and trade unions seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality.

Key Takeaways

  • Justice Gautam Ankhad recused himself from hearing MSPSA challenges.
  • Petitions filed by INC, AITUC and CPI(M) contest the Act’s constitutional validity.
  • Petitioners allege violations of fundamental rights and Article 21 due process.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad was slated to hear a batch of petitions on August 10, 2026, questioning the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025 (MSPSA). The petitions were filed by the Indian National Congress, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

During the hearing, Maharashtra’s Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe urged the bench to dismiss the petitions as meritless. Senior advocate Navroze Seervai, representing AITUC, counter‑argued that the Act itself is unconstitutional, not merely the petitions. Justice Ankhad subsequently announced his inability to hear the matters and formally recused himself. The court ordered the registry to ensure that these petitions are not listed before any division that includes Justice Ankhad.

The petitioners contend that MSPSA grants the executive sweeping powers to ban organisations without judicial oversight. They argue that the definitions of “unlawful activity” and “unlawful organisation” are overly broad, chilling freedoms of speech, expression, peaceful assembly and association.

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that the recusal underscores growing concerns over judicial impartiality in politically sensitive cases. If the bench is reshuffled, it may delay a decisive ruling on whether MSPSA breaches Articles 14, 19 and 21, impacting civil liberties across Maharashtra.

"The Act’s expansive scope collides with core constitutional principles, especially the lack of judicial review," said Prof. Anjali Singh, constitutional law expert.
Did You Know?: The 2025 MSPSA introduced more robust enforcement provisions than earlier security laws, including the power to seize property without a prior hearing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: Will the judge’s recusal delay the hearing of the petitions?

Answer: Yes, the removal of a judge can require re‑assignment of the cases, potentially postponing a final decision.

Question 2: Which provisions of the MSPSA are under the greatest constitutional scrutiny?

Answer: The vague definitions of “unlawful organisation,” the ability to impose bans without a hearing, and the sweeping powers given to district magistrates and police commissioners are the primary points of contention.