Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh and Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned counsel (through VC) and Ms. Shalini Gera, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring Notification No. F-4-101/Home-c/2024 dated 30th October 2024, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Surakhsha Adhiniyam, 2005 (CVJSA), declaring the Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM) as an unlawful organization, as unconstitutional, void, and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Surakhsha Adhiniyam, 2005 (CVJSA), in particular, Sections 3, 5 and 6 as unconstitutional, null, and void for violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently strike it down in its entirety.

(iii) Direct the Respondents to forthwith revoke the impugned notification and restore the lawful status of Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM), thereby ensuring that its members may continue their peaceful and constitutionally protected activities without fear of prosecution, intimidation, or harassment.

(iv) Grant an appropriate writ or direction restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive action, including arrests, detentions, or criminal proceedings, against the members of MBM based on the impugned notification.

(v) Award costs of the petition to the Petitioner for the expenses incurred due to the unconstitutional and arbitrary actions of the Respondents, which have infringed upon their fundamental rights.

(vi) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just, equitable, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, in the year 1992, the 73rd amendment to the Constitution introduced a third tier of democratic governance by establishing Panchayats and Municipalities as units of local self-Government. This was a landmark development aimed at decentralizing authority and empowering communities at the grassroots level. Four years later, in 1996, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short, ‘PESA’), was enacted to extend the principles of local self-governance to Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. The PESA conferred significant powers on Gram Sabhas, including the authority to protect community resources, mandatory consultation prior to any land acquisition, and the right to make recommendations before the grant of mining leases or prospecting licenses. The legislation thus sought to strengthen participatory democracy and ensure community-led development in Scheduled Areas. A decade thereafter, in 2006, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘FRA’), was enacted. The said transformative statute recognized and vested legal rights in Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (for short, ‘OTFDs’) over forest land and resources, thereby reversing the historical injustices perpetrated under colonial forest laws.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11th May 2021, a Central Reserve Police Force (for short, ‘CRPF’) camp was established on agricultural land in Silger village, District South Bastar without any prior notice to the local villagers, which contravened constitutional mandates as well as the provisions of both PESA and FRA, which require consultation with and consent from the Gram Sabha prior to such occupation of community lands. The villagers became aware of the CRPF camp on 12th May 2021 and between 12th May and 17th May 2021, the villagers made repeated attempts to seek clarification from CRPF officials. However, their inquiries were met with threats, lathi charges, and tear gas, escalating tensions and fears among the local populace. The establishment of the CRPF camp severely disrupted local livelihoods and appeared to be part of a continuing pattern of disregard for the lives, dignity, and sustenance of the Tribal community. Crucially, the camp was established in violation of applicable legal provisions, feeding a groundswell of public resentment and resistance by the affected villagers.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that by 17 th May 2021, approximately 15,000 people had assembled near the CRPF camp in Silger. In response, CRPF personnel opened fire on the unarmed protestors, resulting in the deaths of three male villagers: Uika Pandu (14, of Timapuram), Kowasi Vagal (30, of Satubayee), and Ursa Bhima (35, of Gundam). Additionally, Punem Somli, who was three months pregnant, lost her life in the ensuing stampede. Around 40 other protestors sustained injuries. When villagers attempted to retrieve the bodies of the deceased, they were threatened with further firing. compelling them to abandon the effort. In protest, villagers initiated a chakka jam (road blockade) between the Tarrem camp and the Silger police station. In the aftermath of the events of 17th May 2021, the Moolvasi Bachao Manch (for short, ‘MBM’) was formed as a grassroots platform led by Tribal youth, which is sought to address issues of State militarization, forced displacement, and ongoing violations of constitutional rights in the Bastar region. The said MBM comprised multiple smaller movements, protests, and advocacy campaigns across the districts of Dantewada, Sukma, and Bijapur-each of which was rooted in specific local grievances. Between its inception in 2021 and the issuance of the impugned declaration in 2024, MBM spearheaded over thirty peaceful initiatives, all of which sought to uphold constitutional guarantees and protect Tribal rights. These efforts focused on opposing the establishment of paramilitary camps without the consent of Gram Sabhas, resisting infrastructure projects initiated without community consultation, and exposing serious violations such as extrajudicial killings, unlawful detentions, and other forms of state excess. While diverse in their immediate contexts, these initiatives were unified by an overarching demand for the implementation of constitutional safeguards-particularly the mandatory consultation with Gram Sabhas in Fifth Schedule Areas prior to any development or security-related activity. At one such moment of heightened protest, MBM members travelled to Bijapur and requested an audience with the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh. A meeting was granted and was conducted via video conference. On 13th June 2021, members of MBM attempted to return to the chakka jam site to inform the villagers about the outcome of their meeting with the Chief Minister. However, they were prevented from doing so, and the chakka jam was forcibly broken up by the authorities. In response, the villagers initiated a peaceful daily protest approximately 100 meters from the CRPF camp. Thereafter, MBM demanded a judicial inquiry into the police firing and resultant loss of lives. This demand was not acceded to. Instead, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short, ‘SDM’) conducted an ex parte inquiry without issuing prior notice to the villagers, thereby precluding the presence of the victims' families at the site. MBM formally requested the SDM to revisit the location on 11th July 2021 to enable the families of the deceased to be present and to participate in the inquiry. MBM also attempted to contact the local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Mr. Kawasi Lakhma, seeking support and intervention, but he refused to respond to their calls. On 3rd June 2021, MBM, Bijapur-Sukma, Bastar Division, addressed a memorandum to Mr. Deepak Baij, Member of Parliament from Bastar, urging immediate action against the illegal establishment of the CRPF camp at Silger and demanding accountability for the killings that took place there. A memorandum was issued in light of the constitution of a delegation of eight legislators under Mr. Baij's leadership by the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, Shri Bhupesh Baghel, to address the grievances of the Tribal communities protesting against the camp. MBM raised three key demands: i. the immediate removal of the Silger police, CRPF, and DRG camp; ii. strict action against the officers responsible for the killing of protestors at Silger on 17th May, 2021 including the removal of Bastar IG P. Sunderraj and Bijapur SP, Kamlochan Kashyap from their posts; and iii. the establishment of essential public facilities, such as hospitals and schools, in place of police camps.

6. The memorandum was submitted with the expectation that, as an Tribal parliamentarian, Mr. Baij would take necessary steps to address this critical concern. In the month of July 2021, a Gram Sabha was convened at Bechapa, Bhairamgarh, Bijapur district, during which a six-point charter of demands was adopted. MBM conveyed these demands to the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh through a formal representation. By way of a letter dated 9th October 2021, MBM, jointly with the Jail Bandi Rihai Samiti, Bastar Division, informed the District Magistrate, Bijapur, of their plan to organize a two-day public meeting, rally, and protest demonstration at the Gangaloor Panchayat Ground on 10th and 11th October 2021. The protest was convened to mark and protest the Edesmetta massacre of 17th May 2013, as well as the killings at Sarkeguda, Silger, and other continuing acts of violence in the Bastar region. The organizers anticipated participation by approximately 2,500 to 5,000 villagers. The letter drew attention to the findings of the judicial inquiry conducted by a Judge which had conclusively established that the eight individuals including four minors killed in the Edesmetta incident were not Naxalites, but innocent civilians celebrating the traditional Beej festival. The letter set out four key demands: i. criminal prosecution of those responsible for the Edesmetta fake encounter, ii. legal action against the perpetrators of the Sarkeguda and Silger incidents, with compensation of Rs.1 crore for each deceased person and Rs.50 lakhs for each injured individual; iii. strict penal action, including the death penalty, for officials responsible for ongoing fake encounters in Bastar, and iv. initiation of a public dialogue between the Government and protesting organizations to ensure justice for affected communities. On 10th October 2021, MBM, the Jail Bandi Rihai Samiti, and over two dozen villagers addressed a separate letter to the Hon'ble Governor and the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Bijapur. This letter reiterated the demand for Rs.1 crore as compensation for families of those killed and Rs.50 lakhs for the injured in fake encounters by security forces in Bastar, with particular emphasis on the Edesmetta massacre. Citing the findings of the judicial inquiry report, which affirmed the innocence of the victims, the letter called for immediate redress. It also condemned ongoing violence, torture, and the filing of false cases against Tribals in the name of security operations. The signatories warned that failure to address these concerns would result in indefinite protests and road blockades. Additionally, the letter demanded judicial inquiries into other past massacres in the region. It was signed by Raghu, President of Moolwasi Bachao Manch and the Petitioner in this petition, along with the President or Secretary of the Jail Bandi Rihai Samiti, Bastar Division, and multiple villagers. By way of a letter dated 12th January 2022, MBM addressed the Collector of Bijapur, requesting the allocation of land in Gangaloor for the construction of a smarak (memorial) in honour of Tribal leader Punem Dodi Pedda. The letter underscored that the proposed memorial would serve as a space of collective remembrance, specifically, it was intended to be the site for the annual observance of Bhumkal Diwas on 10 February an occasion of profound historical and cultural significance for Tribal communities in Bastar. On 5th March 2022, police personnel attempted to forcibly dismantle a peaceful protest camp by launching two mortar shells, which narrowly missed the protestors, including several women and children present at the site. The attack posed a grave threat to life and safety. In defiance of this act of intimidation, the protest resumed with renewed resolve, now also registering dissent against the attempted attack itself.

7. It is also the case of the petitioner that in between April and June 2022, the peaceful Dharna site at Bechapal in Bijapur District was subjected to repeated police assaults. On at least five separate occasions, the protest was violently disrupted under the leadership of the Mirtul Thana Incharge. During these attacks, more than 100 Tribal villagers including women, elderly persons, and children were physically assaulted, further aggravating the atmosphere of fear and repression. On 11th May 2022, MBM submitted an application to the SDM, Bijapur, seeking permission to organize a memorial event between 15th and 17th May 2022. The proposed gathering was intended to mark one year since the police firing incident of 17th May 2021 at Silger, in which three unarmed villagers were killed. On 24th June 2022, police personnel launched an assault on peaceful dharna sites at Burji Pusnar and Bechapal. The operation was led by the In-Charge of Gangaloor Police Station and involved the deployment of bulldozers to dismantle protest infrastructure, stages and makeshift huts were demolished, and villagers' belongings, including clothes, were set on fire. On 27th June 2022, MBM submitted a letter to the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh, drawing attention to the conduct of the police and civil administration in relation to protests organized by Tribal communities in Bijapur district.

8. In the month of September 2022, MBM addressed a letter to the Collector, Bijapur, requesting that the participants in a two-day meeting scheduled for 7th-8th October 2022 be permitted to attend and participate without facing any obstruction or harassment. In a letter dated 30th September 2022, MBM addressed the District Magistrate, Bijapur, requesting that no obstruction be caused to its members and villagers traveling to Raipur to participate in the State-wide general conference of Gram Sabhas on 2nd October 2022, at Gondwana Bhawan, Tikapara, Raipur, organized to mark Gandhi Jayanti and the completion of 75 years of independence. The event was aimed at discussing the relevance of village republics, followed by a 'Village Independence Rally' at Azaad Chowk, after paying tribute to Mahatma Gandhi's statue. The letter urged the administration to ensure the unhindered movement of MBM members traveling for this purpose. In a memorandum dated 22nd March 2023, MBM, Bhairamgarh, informed the District Magistrate, Bijapur, that they had launched an indefinite strike demanding compensation for environmental damage caused by road construction, an end to illegal mining and land excavation without Gram Sabha approval, cessation of harassment and arbitrary arrests of Tribals under security operations, and the removal of fraudulently enlisted individuals from the District Reserve Guard (for short, ‘DRG’) who had been declared as "surrendered Naxalites" under the Lone Varattu campaign.

9. On 15th May 2023, MBM, District Bijapur, wrote to the Collector, Bijapur, requesting that attendees of a public meeting commemorating the 10th anniversary of the killing of eight Tribals in the Edesmeta police firing be allowed to participate without facing harassment or obstruction and the same was also addressed a letter to the Tehsildar, Awapalli, Usur, requesting the arrangement of a water tanker at the venue of the memorial meeting and Aam Sabha organized to commemorate the Silger incident. On the same day, MBM wrote to the District Magistrate, Bijapur, informing about about the event and seeking permission to organize a memorial meeting and Aam Sabha. On 1st June 2023, MBM wrote to the Governor of Chhattisgarh to protest airstrikes conducted in the forested hills between Minaghata, Jabaghata, Kavurghata, and Bhattiguda. On 6th June 2023, MBM submitted a memorandum to the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh, condemning the aerial bombardments conducted by the Indian Government on 7th and 14th15th April 2023 in the border areas of Sukma and Bijapur districts in Bastar. The memorandum emerged from deliberations held during an Aam Sabha and demanded an immediate halt to airstrikes, accountability for those responsible, an end to the repression of Tribals in the name of anti-Naxal operations, protection of land and forest rights, and a clear statement from the State and Central Government regarding these attacks.

10. On 4th August 2023, the MBM, submitted a memorandum to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Usur, seeking permission to conduct a public rally on 9th August 2023, from 10 AM to 5 PM. The rally was organized in protest against the horrific assault on Kuki Tribal women in Manipur in May 2023, wherein women were paraded naked and subjected to brutal and inhumane treatment. The memorandum described the incident as a deeply distressing violation of women's dignity and a grave insult to daughters and sisters of the country. MBM intended the rally to express solidarity with the survivors and to demand justice and accountability. The memorandum was submitted by Arjun Sodi, Chairman, MBM, Nambi, Usur Block, Bijapur. On 12th September 2023, MBM, Nambi, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a memorandum to the SubDivisional Officer, Usur, seeking permission to observe Jatin Das Diwas on 13th September 2023 in remembrance of the 63-day hunger strike undertaken by Indian freedom fighter Jatin Das during the independence movement. The proposed event was to be conducted as a mass gathering at a designated protest site, aimed at honouring Jatin Das's enduring legacy. The memorandum was submitted by Arjun Sodi, Chairman, MBM, Nambi, Usur Block, Bijapur. On 9th October 2023, MBM submitted a letter to the Collector, Bijapur, acknowledging the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in Chhattisgarh due to the upcoming elections and seeking clarity on its provisions. The letter requested a copy of the MCC rules to ensure compliance while organizing protests and gatherings. MBM also affirmed that all protests would be conducted peacefully and in adherence to the MCC, with no large crowds and a maximum of 10-15 participants at any sit-in demonstration. On 18th October 2023, MBM, Nambi, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the SubDivisional Officer, Usur, seeking permission to celebrate the 23rd anniversary of the formation of Chhattisgarh State on 1st November 2023. The letter stated that, to mark the occasion, MBM planned to organize traditional singing and dancing in Nambi village in recognition of Chhattisgarh's separation from Madhya Pradesh in 2000. On 1st February 2024, MBM, District Bijapur, requested permission to hold sports competitions, including indigenous sports such as volleyball and kabaddi, to commemorate the 114th Bhumkal Diwas on 10th February 2024.

11. On 2nd February 2024, MBM submitted a letter to the District Magistrate, Sukma, seeking permission to observe the 114th Bhumkal Diwas from 7th to 12th February 2024. On 17th February 2024, MBM wrote to the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Division, drawing attention to harassment faced by its members and reporting direct threats of death issued by police officials. On 26th April 2024, MBM, Nambi, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Usur, seeking permission to celebrate the 138th anniversary of International Workers' Day (May Day) on 1st May 2024. The letter referenced the historic 1886 workers' strike in the United States for an eight-hour workday and stated that MBM intended to observe the occasion through traditional singing and dancing in Nambi village. On 6th May 2024, MBM, Bastar Division, submitted a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sukma, seeking permission to organize a public meeting to mark the third anniversary of the deaths of three villagers in police firing. In June 2024, MBM member Suneeta Pottam was arrested on fabricated charges. In response, Moolwasi Bachao Manch (MBM) issued a press release strongly protesting the arrest and condemning the targeting of its members. On 8th June 2024, three members of the organization, namely Soni Bhima Jabbalgatta, Madkam Joga, and Madkam Joshen visited the offices of the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Sukma, to seek permission for holding a memorial meeting on the third anniversary of the Silger firing, in which three villagers had been killed. However, they were denied a meeting with either official. Upon returning to Polampalli village, they were arrested without cause and taken to Sukma. On 13th June 2024, MBM member Krishna Kumar Kadti was illegally arrested by Shashikant Sinha, the In-Charge of Dornapal Police Station, while returning from Sukma after seeking permission from the District Administration to hold a meeting. He was subjected to severe custodial violence, resulting in injuries that required hospitalization. A false criminal case was subsequently registered against him. MBM issued a press release condemning the illegal arrest, the custodial assault, and the continued repression of its members. On 5th August 2024, MBM, Usur, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Usur, seeking permission to observe International Indigenous Day on 9th August 2024. The letter highlighted the annual significance of the occasion and expressed deep concern over the continuing violence in Bastar since 1st January 2024. The organization sought approval for a one-day gathering from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM on 9th August 2024. On 11th September 2024, the Tehsildar of Gangalur issued an acknowledgment of receipt of a letter submitted by MBM, seeking permission to organize a one-day program on 13th September 2024 at Gram Panchayat Burji. The event was proposed to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the martyrdom of Indian freedom fighter Veer Jatin Das.

12. On 12th September 2024, MBM, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Usur, seeking permission to observe Jatin Das Day on 13th September 2024. The letter recalled the historic 63-day hunger strike undertaken by Jatin Das and proposed a commemorative event in Nambi village, comprising a sit-in protest and an awareness programme to honour his legacy. MBM sought approval for a oneday gathering from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. On the same day, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bijapur, rejected the request submitted by Moolwasi Bachao Manch (MBM), Usur Block, Bijapur, to observe Jatin Das Day on 13th September 2024 Lat the Burji protest site. The rejection was based on an adverse report from the Gangloor Police Station, which cited potential law and order concerns. The communication from the authorities stated that no permission could be granted for the proposed event. On 26th September 2024, MBM, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the SubDivisional Officer. Revenue Department, Usur, seeking permission to commemorate the birth anniversary of freedom fighter Bhagat Singh on 28th September 2024. The letter stated that the event would be held at the Nambi protest site as a tribute to his legacy and sacrifice. MBM sought approval for a one-day gathering from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. On 24th October 2024, MBM, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Usur, seeking permission to celebrate the second anniversary of the formation of Chhattisgarh State from 1st to 3rd November 2024. The letter stated that the event would be commemorated in accordance with Tribal traditions, including customary dress, cultural expressions, and traditional sports. MBM accordingly requested approval for a three-day celebration. On 28th October 2024, the petitioner submitted an application to the SDM, Bijapur, seeking permission to organize a function on 1st November 2024 to commemorate Chhattisgarh Foundation Day. On the same day, i.e., 28th October 2024, the Government of Chhattisgarh constituted an Advisory Board under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short, ‘CVJSA, 2005’), for the purpose of reviewing notifications issued under the statute declaring organizations as unlawful.

13. On 30th October 2024, the respondent-State issued Notification No.F-4-101/Home-c/2024, purporting to declare the MBM an "unlawful organization" under Section 3 of the CVJSA, 2005. Thereafter, on 6th November 2024, MBM, Nambi Dhara, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a detailed memorandum to the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh, reiterating their core demands and seeking urgent intervention. The memorandum referred to MBM's ongoing protest, which had commenced on 1st November 2022, and raised twelve critical demands, including: (i) cancellation of the proposed tourism center at Nambi Dhara waterfall; (ii) an end to the harassment and exploitation of Tribal women during security force patrols; (iii) effective enforcement of Gram Sabha resolutions and compliance with PESA laws and rules; (iv) halting the discharge of polluted red water from the Bailadila project; (v) stopping the establishment of new police camps in Bastar; (vi) preventing forced mining activities in Tribal areas; (vii) improving access to quality education, healthcare, and drinking water in affected villages; (viii) ensuring protection of Tribal identity, existence, and dignity; (ix) guaranteeing Tribal control over jal-jangal-zameen (water, forest, and land); (x) cancellation of the Garden Reserve tourism project in Bhopalpatnam; (xi) stopping the proposed displacement of 22 villages and 56 villages respectively within the Indravati Reserve Forest; and (xii) halting the establishment of an Indian Army training center in the Abujhmad region. On 8th November 2024, the notification declaring MBM as an "unlawful organization" was published in the Official Gazette. However, the publication was not widely disseminated, and no public announcement or effort was made by the Respondent authorities to inform affected persons. As a result, members of MBM remained unaware of the declaration for a considerable period. On the same day, nine members of MBM, along with approximately 50 villagers, were detained by paramilitary forces/Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) while preparing to leave Gundiraguda village for Kondapalli. On the following day, 9th November 2024, MBM issued a press release demanding the immediate release of its detained members and the accompanying villagers.

14. On 14th November 2024, MBM, Kondapalli, Usur Block, Bijapur, submitted a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Usur, seeking permission to celebrate the birth anniversary of Birsa Munda on 15th November 2024 at the Kondapalli Protest Site. The letter emphasized Birsa Munda's historical significance and his sacrifice in resisting British colonial rule, and sought approval for a one-day event to be conducted from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, with participation expected from thousands of attendees. On 18th November 2024, some members of MBM informally learned-through unverified sources such as WhatsApp messages that the organization had been declared unlawful" under the CVJSA, 2005. As of that date, no formal or official communication of such a declaration had been received by any office-bearer or member of MBM. On the following day i.e. 19th November 2024, two Tribal activists Bhogam Rama and Madvi Ritesh-associated were arrested under the provisions of the CVJSA, 2005. At the time of their arrest, neither they nor the MBM membership at large had received any formal intimation regarding the declaration of MBM as an unlawful organization. It was only after their arrest, when villagers visited the local police station to demand their release that they were informed, for the first time, that the arrests were purportedly linked to MBM's designation as an unlawful organization.

15. On 22nd November 2024, the Chhattisgarh Police issued a press release stating that Bhogam Rama and Madvi Ritesh had been arrested under the CVJSA, 2005 on the allegation that they were members of MBM, which had been declared a banned organization. The said press release constituted the first official communication received by any MBM member regarding the alleged declaration of MBM as an unlawful organization. Upon becoming aware of the contents of the impugned Notification through the aforesaid press release, the responsible office- bearers of MBM immediately suspended all organizational activities. Concurrently, they initiated the process of preparing a formal representation to the State Government under Section 4 of the CVJSA, 2005, challenging the declaration and seeking withdrawal of the notification. On the said date, i.e. 22nd November 2024, the representation was finalized, and it was dispatched to the respondent Government on 23th November, 2024 by the pPetitioner on behalf of MBM. The representation stated that the declaration of MBM as an unlawful organization was unjustified, arbitrary, and violative of law. It emphasized that the impugned Notification lacked concrete evidence or specific allegations and failed to disclose any basis for such an extreme measure. The representation reiterated MBM's commitment to lawful, peaceful advocacy for Tribal rights and its support for development initiatives that are consistent with the constitutional and statutory mandates under PESA and FRA. Despite the representation being duly delivered to the respondent on 26th November 2024, no response has been received to date. 

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Notification dated 30.10.2024 is void for violating Section 3 of the CVJSA, 2005 as Section 3(1) of the CVJSA, 2005, stipulates that "If the Government is of the 'opinion' that any organization is, or has become, an unlawful organization, it may, by notification, declare such organization to be unlawful." However, Section 3(2) expressly mandates that "Every such notification shall specify the 'grounds on which it is issued.", and the impugned Notification merely states that the Government has formed an opinion that MBM is an unlawful organization but fails to specify any "grounds" for that opinion, in direct violation of Section 3(2), which need to be quashed. He further submits that the impugned Notification fails to cite any specific act, speech (oral or written), sign, or visible representation attributable to Moolwasi Bachao Manch (MBM) or its members that falls within any of the eight subclauses of Section 2(e) of the CVJSA, 2005, which defines "unlawful activity." and the failure to state the grounds in the Notification renders it void by frustrating the statutory purpose of review by the Advisory Board under Sections 5 and 6 of the CVJSA, 2005.

17. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Advisory Board is statutorily mandated to assess the validity of the notification by examining the factual basis for declaring an organization unlawful. However, in the absence of specific reasons and supporting material, the Board is precluded from effectively exercising its jurisdiction, thereby rendering its review function illusory and ineffective. It has been further submits that the failure to disclose the factual material and reasoning that allegedly support the Government's satisfaction under Section 3 of the CVJSA, 2005, violates the principle of audi alteram partem and by withholding the basis of the declaration, the impugned Notification deprives the organization of a reasonable opportunity to show cause against its prohibition. It has been submitted that the impugned Notification unjustly misrepresents the peaceful advocacy and lawful objectives of the MBM as threats to public order and state security as at all times, MBM's activities have been conducted within the framework of the Constitution and relevant statutes and have sought to highlight and address the legitimate grievances of Tribal communities in Bastar. It has been further submitted that the impugned Notification violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India by creating an arbitrary and hostile classification that selectively targets the MBM without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus to the stated objective of maintaining public order or security. It has been argued that the impugned Notification unjustifiably curtails MBM's fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India as despite the absence of any proximate or demonstrable threat to public order or national security, the Notification penalizes constitutionally protected forms of expression, assembly, and association without satisfying the threshold of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) to 19(4) of the Constitution of India. It has been further argued that as per Sections 5 and 6 of the CVJSA, 2005, the State Government is required to constitute an Advisory Board within six weeks of issuing a notification under Section 3, and the Advisory Board is mandated to submit its report on the validity of such notification within three months from the date of the notification. In the present case, the Advisory Board was constituted via Gazette notification dated 28th October, 2024, however, although the statutory period of 18 weeks from the date of the impugned Notification expired on 5th March 2025, no copy of the Advisory Board's report has been made public, nor has any communication been issued to MBM or its members regarding the outcome of the review.

18. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, Raghu Midiyami, founder and former President of the Moolwasi Bachao Manch (MBM), was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Raipur, on 27th February 2025 in connection with Crime No. RC-02/2023/NIA/RPR for the offence punishable under Sections 8(1), (3), and (5) of the CVJSA, 2005 as also under Sections 10, 13(1), 13(2), and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘UAPA, 1967’) alleging that the petitioner founded MBM and organised protests against police camps, roads, and other infrastructure projects at the behest of Maoist cadres, and that he acted as a "link" between Maoist groups and protesting villagers. These allegations are vague, speculative, and entirely unsupported by any credible evidence of unlawful activity. They reflect a broader, entrenched pattern whereby peaceful and democratic mobilisation by Tribal communities-particularly when asserting rights under the Constitution, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, and the Forest Rights Act is reflexively attributed to Maoist influence. Hence, the impugned Notification dated 30.10.2024 is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madras v. V.G. Row reported in (1952) 1 SCC 410 to buttress his submissions.

19. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has filed a representation dated 23.11.2024 before the authorities concerned, which was received by the authorities on 26.11.2024 and the representation so filed by the petitioner has been forwarded to the Advisory Board. He further submits that the Advisory Board has called for some documents/reports from the State vide order dated 19.02.2025 and the necessary information and documents/reports were sent by the State to the Advisory Board on 26.03.2025, as such, at this stage, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is a premature one, which needs no interference by this Court and deserves to be dismissed.

20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition with utmost circumspection as also the provisions contained in CVJSA, 2005 and UAPA, 1967.

21. At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract some relevant provisions of the CVJSA, 2005 as also UAPA, 1967. Section 3 of CVJSA, 2005 reads as follows:-

“3. Declaration of an organization as unlawful.-(1) If the Government is of the opinion that any organization is, or has become an unlawful organization, it may by notification, declare such organization to be unlawful.

(2) Every such notification shall specify the grounds on which it is issued:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall require the Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.

(3) Where such unlawful organization has a registered office, the notification shall be served by sending the same through Registered Post or by handing over to any office bearer in such registered office and in case any office bearer is not available or refuses to receive the notification, the same shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the office; and where the organization does not have a registered office the notification shall be published in any one local newspaper.

(4) The notification shall be in force for a period of one year and may be extended for such further period or periods not exceeding one year at a time, as may be deemed necessary after reviewing the position.

(5) A notification issued under sub-section (1) may be revoked by the Government where it considers that the need of its continuance has cease.”

22. Section 3 of UAPA, 1967 reads as follows:-

“3. Declaration of an association as unlawful.—(1) If the Central Government is of opinion that any association is, or has become, an unlawful association, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful.

(2) Every such notification shall specify the grounds on which it is issued and such other particulars as the Central Government may consider necessary:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall require the Central Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.

(3) No such notification shall have effect until the Tribunal has, by an order made under section 4, confirmed the declaration made therein and the order is published in the Official Gazette: 

Provided that if the Central Government is of opinion that circumstances exist which render it necessary for that Government to declare an association to be unlawful with immediate effect, it may, for reasons to be stated in writing, direct that the notification shall, subject to any order that may be made under section 4, have effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

(4) Every such notification shall, in addition to its publication in the Official Gazette, be published in not less than one daily newspaper having circulation in the State in which the principal office, if any, of the association affected is situated, and shall also be served on such association in such manner as the Central Government may think fit and all or any of the following modes may be followed in effecting such service, namely: —

(a) by affixing a copy of the notification to some conspicuous part of the office, if any, of the association; or,

(b) by serving a copy of the notification, where possible, on the principal officebearers, if any, of the association; or

(c) by proclaiming by beat of drum or by means of loudspeakers, the contents of the notification in the area in which the activities of the association are ordinarily carried on; or

(d) in such other manner as may be prescribed.”

23. Section 3(3) of the CVJSA, 2005 provides that where such unlawful organization has a registered office, the notification shall be served by sending the same through Registered Post or by handing over to any office bearer in such registered office and in case any office bearer is not available or refuses to receive the notification, the same shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the office; and where the organization does not have a registered office the notification shall be published in any one local newspaper and Section 3(3) of the UAPA, 1967 provides that no such notification shall have effect until the Tribunal has, by an order made under section 4, confirmed the declaration made therein and the order is published in the Official Gazette.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner harping upon Section 3(3) of CVJSA, 2005 to contend that where such unlawful organization has a registered office, the notification shall be served by sending the same through Registered Post or by handing over to any office bearer in such registered office and in case any office bearer is not available or refuses to receive the notification, the same shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the office; and where the organization does not have a registered office the notification shall be published in any one local newspaper. In the present case, MBM is not a registered organization, as such, the Notification should have been published in any one local newspaper and the petitioner-organization should not have been banned.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph-24 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of V.G. Row (supra), which is reproduced below for easy reference:- 

“24. Giving due weight to all the considerations indicated above, we have come to the conclusion that Section 15(2)(b) cannot be upheld as falling within the limits of authorised restrictions on the right conferred by Article 19(1)(c). The right to form associations or unions has such wide and varied scope for its exercise, and its curtailment is fraught with such potential reactions in the religious 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 imposition, 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. The formula of subjective satisfaction of the Government or of its officers, with an Advisory Board thrown in to review the materials on which the Government seeks to override a basic freedom guaranteed to the citizen, may be viewed as reasonable only in very exceptional circumstances and within the narrowest limits, and cannot receive judicial approval as a general pattern of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.” 

26. Opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General relied upon paragraphs-18 to 20 of V.G. Row (supra) and submits that the judgment of V.G. Row (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the representation of the petitioner is already pending consideration before the Advisory Board. Paragraphs-18 to 23 of the said judgment reads as follows :-

“18. It will be seen that while old Section 16 expressly conferred on the Provincial Government power to declare associations unlawful if, in its opinion, there existed certain specified grounds in relation to them, those grounds are now incorporated in Section 15(2)(b) as amended, and the reference to the "opinion" of the Government is dropped. This led to some discussion before us as to whether or not the grounds referred to in Section 15 (2) (b) as amended are justiciable issues. if the factual existence of those grounds could be made the subject of inquiry in a court of law, the restrictions sought to be imposed on the right of association would not be open to exception, but then the Government would apparently have no use for Section 15 (2) (b). For, it was strenuously contended on its behalf by the AttorneyGeneral that the incorporation of these grounds in a definition clause, which made a declaration by Government the test of unlawfulness, rendered the insertion of the words "in its opinion" unnecessary and, indeed, inappropriate, and that the omission of those words could not lead to any inference that the grounds on which the declaration was to be based were intended to be any more justifiable than under the old Section 16; more especially as the "opinion" or the "satisfaction" of the Government or of its officers is still the determining factor in notifying a place under Section 17 A (1) and in forfeiting the movables found there- in under Section 17B (1) or the funds of an unlawful association under Section 17E (1). The provision for an inquiry as to the existence or otherwise of such grounds before an Advisory Board and for cancellation of the notification in case the Board found there was no sufficient cause for declaring the association as unlawful also pointed, it was urged, to the same conclusion.

19. The contention is not without force, and the position was not contested for the respondent. It may, accordingly, be taken that the test under Section 15 (2) (b) is, as it was under the old Section 16, a subjective one and the factual existence or otherwise of the grounds is not a justifiable issue. It is on this basis, then, that the question has to be determined as to whether Section 15 (2)(b) as amended falls within the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative abridgement of the fundamental right conferred on the citizen by Article 19 (1) (c). Those limits are defined in clause (4) of the same article:

"19.(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any imposing, in the interests of public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause."

20. It was not disputed that the restrictions in question were imposed "in the interests of public order". But, are they "reasonable" restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(4) Before proceeding to consider this question, we think it right to point out, what is sometimes overlooked, that our Constitution contains express provisions for judicial review of legislation as to its conformity with the Constitution, unlike as in America where the Supreme Court has assumed extensive powers of reviewing legislative acts undercover of the widely interpreted "due process" clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If, then, the courts in this country face up to such important and none too easy task, it is not out of any desire to tilt at legislative authority in a crusader's spirit, but in discharge of a duty plainly laid upon them by the Constitution. This is especially true as regards the "fundamental ri ghts ", as to which this Court has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive. While the Court naturally attaches great weight to the legislative judgment, it cannot desert its own duty to determine finally the constitutionality of an impugned statute. We have ventured on these obvious remarks because it appears to have been suggested in some quarters that the courts in the new set up are out to seek clashes with the legislatures in the country.

21. The learned Judges of the High Court unanimously held that the restrictions under Section 15 (2) (b) were not reasonable on the ground of-(1)the inadequacy of the publication of the notification, (2) the omission to fix a time- limit for the Government sending the papers to the Advisory Board or for the latter to make its report, no safeguards being provided against the Government enforcing the penal- ties in the meantime, and (3) the denial to the aggrieved person of the right to appear either in person or by pleader before the Advisory Board to make good his representation. In addition to these grounds one of the learned Judges (Satyanarayana Rao J.) held that the impugned Act offended against Article 14 of the Constitution in that there was no reasonable basis for the differentiation in treatment be- tween the two classes of unlawful associations mentioned in Section 15 (2) (a) and (b). The other learned Judges did not, however, agree with this view. 

Viswanatha Sastri J. further held that the provisions for forfeiture of property contained in the impugned Act were void as they had no reasonable relation to the maintenance of public order. The other two Judges expressed no opinion on this point. While agreeing with the conclusion of the learned Judges that Section 15 (2) (b) is unconstitutional and void, we are of opinion that the decision can be rested on a broader and more fundamental ground.

22. This Court had occasion in N.B. Khare v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 519, to define the scope of the judicial review under clause (5) of Article 19 where the phrase "imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right" also occurs, and four out of the five Judges participating in the decision expressed the view (the other Judge leaving the question open) that both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness; that is to say, the Court should consider not only factors such as the duration and the extent of the restrictions, but also the circumstances under which and the manner in which their imposition has been authorised.

23. It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, where ever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard. or general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of what is reasonable, in all the circumstances of a given case. it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of values of the judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the limit to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can only be dictated by their sense of responsibility and self-restraint and the sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant not only for people of their way of thinking but for all, and that the majority of the elected representatives of the people have, in authorising the imposition of' the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable.”

27. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is reflected from the record that the petitioner has filed a representation dated 23.11.2024 before the Advisory Board which was received by the authorities concerned on 26.11.2024. The representation filed by the petitioner has been forwarded to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has called for some documents/reports from the State vide order dated 19.02.2025 and the necessary information and documents/reports were sent by the State to the Advisory Board on 26.03.2025.

28. Taking into account the fact that the matter is pending adjudication before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief(s) claimed by the petitioner, at this stage.

29. Resultantly, the present petition being devoid of substance is dismissed as premature one. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law, if occasion arises.