On May 5, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a petition challenging the State Government’s notification under the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, which declared the Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM), an Adivasi organisation, as an unlawful body.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma found that the MBM was not a registered organisation and that its representation was already under review by the Advisory Board as per Section 5 of the Act.
Read Also:- Chhattisgarh HC Hears Plea Challenging Public Safety Act and Ban on Adivasi Group MBM
“If it is a registered body then you have a right to say why it is banned. If it is a simple body... then you are only saying,” the court observed orally, questioning the legal status of MBM.
The petition, filed by Raghu Midiyami—founder and former president of MBM—claimed that several members, including himself, had been arrested merely due to their association with the group. Representing Midiyami, senior advocate Sanjay Parikh argued that there were no incidents justifying the classification of the organization as unlawful.
Read Also:- Compassionate Appointment Not a Right When Family Is Financially Stable, Says Chhattisgarh High Court
Parikh referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in VG Row to make two key points:
- The notification lacked necessary grounds under the law.
- Judicial scrutiny was required before such a declaration could take effect.
“My contention is based on the VG Row judgment... executive can declare, but judicial determination must follow before enforcement,” Parikh said.
However, the Advocate General countered that the government had provided reasons in its October 2024 notification. The document stated that MBM had been opposing development efforts in Maoist-affected areas and was inciting the public against the government.
Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Privacy: Denies Access to Victim's Social Media in Rape Case
According to the State, MBM’s actions were disrupting public order, interfering with lawful administration, and threatening the safety of citizens.
The Court was informed that MBM had submitted its representation to the Advisory Board in November 2024. In response, the Board had sought comments from the State in February 2025, and the latest correspondence was in March.
At one point, Parikh expressed concern that the reasons for the ban had not been shared with MBM. The Court, after reviewing documents, responded:
“These reports are confidential... if national interest has to be protected, nothing is to be told to you... they have reports and intelligence.”
Parikh further pointed out that under Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a notification declaring an organisation unlawful cannot take effect unless confirmed by a Tribunal and published in the Gazette.
Read Also:- "Leaking Exam Papers Is Worse Than Murder": Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Bail Plea Of Former PSC Chief
He cited a relevant paragraph from the VG Row verdict:
“The right to form associations... is so vital that restrictions on it must be judicially tested... even an Advisory Board’s decision cannot substitute judicial inquiry.”
He argued the current notification was “still born” and that arrests and coercive actions were premature in the absence of judicial confirmation.
Despite these submissions, the Court declined to interfere at this stage:
“The representation is pending before the Advisory Board, which is subjudice. We are not inclined to entertain the matter now. The petitioner may pursue remedies if aggrieved by the final order... dismissed.”
Case title: Raghu Midiyami v/s State of Chattisgarh
WPC/2239/2025
