Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Challenge To Declaration Of 'Moolvasi Bachao Manch' As Unlawful Organization, Says Matter Before Advisory Board

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday (May 5) dismissed a plea challenging a State government notification under Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam (CVJSA) 2005 (Special Public Safety Act) declaring an Adivasi organisation–Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM) as an unlawful organization.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noted that the organisation was not a registered one and in any case, the matter was pending review before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 5 of the CVJSA. It orally observed,

"If its is registered body then you have a right to say why it is banned. If it is a simple body, which according to you is not involved in such activities, then you are only saying. But for declaring an organization to be unlawful, first you have to tell us whether this organization has any legal sanctity. You have to first establish that. Otherwise there are so many persons in the society they may run an association and do activities..."

The plea states that following the issuance of notification, several MBM members have been arrested solely on account of their association with the organisation, including the petitioner–Raghu Midiyami who is the founder and former President of MBM. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for the petitioner claimed not even a single incident is alleged against the organization for declaring that it is involved in unlawful activities.

"My contention is two fold and is squarely based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in VG Row...Number 1, the notification it does not give any ground necessary under the Act for stating that this is the reason for which organization has been declared as unlawful. Secondly If you look at scheme of Act and compare with UAPA, my contention is based on judgment in VG Row, the executive can declare an organization as unlawful but ultimately judicial scrutiny has to be done and only after that the notification can come into effect," he submitted.

The Advocate General appearing for the State however submitted that "reasons have been assigned". He pointed to the October 2024 notification which states the organization "is continuously opposing and instigating the general public against the development works" being carried out by the Government in Maoist affected areas.

The notification also states that the organization is "interfering in the administration of law and promoting disobedience to institutions established by law and thereby disturbing public order, peace and endangering safety of citizens."

The AG further informed the Court that the organization had made a representation to the Advisory Committee in November 2024. The board had asked for certain comments from the State in February and the last note sheet of the Board was from March.

At this juncture, Parikh said that grounds had not been communicated to them. The Court then went through certain documents and orally said, "These reports are confidential documents and it cannot be supplied to you. And on the basis of this the state government and the Hon'ble Governor has passed this notification...they have reports...if national interest has to be protected nothing is to be told to you. They have their reports and intelligence...If state government has its intelligence reports then it can do so."

Parikh then pointed to Section 3(3) of UAPA and submitted that in UAPA no such notification shall have effect until Tribunal confirms the declaration and order is published in official gazette and that this was put there due to VG Row. 

He pointed to a paragraph in the judgment which states, "The right to form associations or unions has such wide and varied scope for its exercise, and its curtail- ment is fraught with such potential reactions in the reli- gious political and economic fields, that the vesting of authority in the executive government to impose restrictions on such right, without allowing the grounds of such imposi- tion, both in their factual and legal aspects, to be duly tested in a judicial inquiry, is a strong element which, in our opinion, must be taken into account in judging the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by section 15 (2) (b) on the exercise of the fundamental right under article 19 (1) (c); for, no summary and what is bound to be a largely one-sided review by an Advisory Board, even where its verdict is binding on the executive government, can be a substitute for a judicial enquiry".

Parikh said that today this notification is "still born" adding, "they are arresting people, coercive action is being taken. Till there is a judicial determination it does not come into effect". 

After hearing the parties for some time the court dismissed the plea. It dictated in its order,

"After having heard learned counsel for the parties, admittedly the representation of the petitioner is pending before the advisory board which is subjudice with the matter. In view of the same we are not inclined to entertain the matter at this stage. It will be open for the petitioner to take recourse if aggrieved by the order...dismissed".

Case title: Raghu Midiyami v/s State of Chattisgarh

WPC/2239/2025