[6] The Statement of Object and Reasons that prefaces MCOCA identifies organised crime as a threat, linking it to terrorist activity and noting the economic impact of illegal wealth and black money on the state's economy.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons goes on to note, "the existing legal framework, i.e. the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory system, are found to be rather inadequate to curb or control the menace of organised crime.

Government has, therefore, decided to enact a special law with stringent and deterrent provisions including in certain circumstances power to intercept wire, electronic or oral communication to control the menace of organised crime.

[8] The Home Ministry of the Government of India extended the applicability of MCOCA to the National Capital Territory of Delhi as well, by a notification dated 2 January 2002.

[18] MCOCA provides special powers to the police to conduct surveillance, in the form of intercepting written, oral, and electronic evidence.

[19] MCOCA provides for the appointment of a 'Competent Authority' to supervise and authorise the police to conduct surveillance activities to investigate organised crime.

Individual surveillance orders passed under MCOCA are not under the review of the legislature or the judiciary, and oversight is retained within the State Government.

Such exceptions or emergencies must involve either the danger of death or physical injury to any person, or a conspiracy threatening the security of the State.

Persons who violate these prohibitions, whether they are disclosing, obtaining, or receiving unauthorised interceptions can be penalised with imprisonment for up to one year, and a maximum fine of Rs.

[27] Similarly, if a case of kidnapping or abduction is proven in connection with a MCOCA trial, a Special Court can presume that it was for ransom.

[33] The Indian Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 allows magistrates to extend detention of a person in police custody beyond 24 hours if it is necessary for an investigation.

[37] In 2007, one of the accused in a case relating to the 2006 Mumbai train bombings challenged the definition of 'organised crime' in MCOCA, which includes the term, 'insurgency', basing their claim on the Constitution of India's allocation of legislative powers between the State and Center.

The argument made in this case, Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra[47] against MCOCA was that the Constitution of India did not allow state legislatures to frame laws on issues concerning 'insurgency' and that this would fall within the powers of the Parliament of India to legislate on issues of national defense, instead.

The petitioners argued first that the State Legislature did not have the power to legislate on intercepting communications and surveillance, as that power belonged to the Parliament of India, which had already enacted the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, dealing with the same issues, and secondly, that provisions of MCOCA violated the Constitution of India's guarantee of the right to equality in Article 14.

[54] The definition of 'organised crime' in MCOCA has been criticised as being too vague, and allowing the Act's stringent provisions to be applied in a wide variety of cases, including those that are already covered under other laws.

[55] Although MCOCA was initially intended to prosecute organised crime that was not covered in other laws, over the years, the Act has been used in Maharashtra for a number of offences already defined in the Indian Penal Code.

[59] In 2010, an investigation by journalists Ajit Sahi and Rana Ayyub showed that in seven out of eight cases that they studied, persons were detained under MCOCA for sustained periods without any charges against them, and eventually freed for lack of any evidence that they had committed crimes.

In 2009, prosecution data suggested that the conviction rate for offences under MCOCA was 58% of cases,[61] a figure that Ujwala Shankarrao Pawar, an additional prosecutor in Maharashtra, described as "very less".

[63][61] In 2010, Pune Police Commissioner Meera Borwankar began an initiative to improve conviction rates for offences, specifically noting the high number of acquittals in MCOCA cases.

[65] MCOCA has also been criticised because it enables action to be taken against police officers for offences such as failing to adequately implement the Act.

For instance, in 2010, Chhagan Bhujbal, who was the Home Minister for Maharashtra when MCOCA was enacted, called for amendments in the law, criticizing its implementation.

While endorsing the need for MCOCA to tackle organised crime, Bhujbal suggested that the provisions prohibiting or reducing access to bail should be amended, to allow accused persons out of jail while awaiting trial.

These include the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA) and a similar law in Andhra Pradesh, which was of a limited duration and expired in 2004.

[70] MCOCA has also served as a model for national legislation, with its example being specifically invoked during discussions in Parliament on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (which has since been repealed).