MAHARASHTRA SPECIAL PUBLIC SECURITY BILL
1. Context
The Maharashtra Legislature passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill or a ‘Bill to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations’, during the recent monsoon session of the Maharashtra Assembly. The Bill has been termed as ‘oppressive, ambiguous and open to misuse’ by opposition leaders.
.png)
2. About Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill
- The Maharashtra government introduced the Special Public Security Bill to address what it terms as the growing threat of ‘urban Naxalism’. According to the Bill, Naxal influence is no longer confined to rural or remote parts of traditionally affected states but is increasingly spreading into urban centers through front organisations.
- These urban fronts reportedly provide critical logistical support and shelter to armed Naxal operatives.
- Documents recovered from Naxal groups allegedly reveal the existence of “safe houses” and “urban hideouts” across various cities in Maharashtra.
- The state administration argues that Maharashtra has become a hub for such urban Naxal networks, claiming the presence of over 60 affiliated groups and asserting that existing legal frameworks are inadequate to tackle them.
- On the other hand, civil rights advocates criticize the government for withholding the names of these organisations despite repeated appeals.
- They contend that the Bill is a tool to suppress left-leaning groups and human rights defenders, particularly those who opposed the BJP during the 2024 general elections
3. Other States
- Maharashtra has become the fifth state—after Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha—to introduce a Public Security Act aimed at strengthening efforts to prevent the activities of unlawful organisations.
- The state government has noted that similar laws in these states have led to the banning of 48 front organisations.
- However, civil liberties groups argue that the Public Security Acts in the other states were enacted before more robust laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), came into force.
- They also highlight that the Maharashtra government itself has previously stated that armed left-wing extremism has been restricted to just two districts through the use of existing laws, raising concerns about whether such a harsh new law is truly necessary at this point
4. Introduction of this bill
- The initial version of the Bill was introduced by the previous Mahayuti government during the final phase of the Maharashtra Assembly’s monsoon session in 2024. State elections followed soon after, resulting in a decisive victory for the BJP and its coalition partners.
- The newly formed government brought the Bill back and reintroduced it in the Assembly during the winter session on December 20, 2024. The following day, a joint committee comprising members from both legislative Houses was established to review the Bill.
- Although the committee received over 12,500 submissions, including objections and suggestions, it incorporated only three amendments, which activists have described as merely superficial.
- Once approved by the committee, the Bill was presented in the Assembly on July 10. While the Communist Party of India (Marxist) formally opposed it, other opposition parties expressed reservations but did not vote against it.
- The Bill was ultimately passed through a voice vote. Since then, two delegations have urged the Governor to withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature for reconsideration
5. Objections regarding the bill
- The opposition has raised serious concerns about the Bill, arguing that it grants the government sweeping powers to label organisations as ‘unlawful’ without adhering to due legal procedures.
- It also permits withholding of information under the pretext of ‘public interest’, enables indefinite extension of bans on groups, and may turn legitimate dissent into a criminal offence due to a vague definition of what constitutes ‘illegal activity’.
- The Bill also removes the jurisdiction of lower courts, thereby limiting accessible legal recourse, and offers complete legal immunity to state officials acting in what is termed as ‘good faith’.
- Critics fear that these provisions could be misused for ideologically driven crackdowns on opposition parties, activists, and civil society movements.
- Although the government insists that peaceful protests and journalistic activities are excluded from the Bill’s scope, the lack of clarity in its language has raised apprehensions that it might be used against farmers’ unions, student groups, and human rights organisations under the guise of maintaining public order.
- For instance, Section 2(f) of the Bill penalises verbal or written communication, gestures, signs, or visual displays that could ‘interfere’ with public order or ‘create concern’.
- The opposition contends that such vague phrasing could be exploited to penalise freedom of expression, public assembly, satire, or criticism simply based on perceived threat—without needing to prove actual violence, immediate danger, or even malicious intent
6. Way forward
The Bill is set to become law once it receives the Governor's approval, having already been passed by both Houses of the State Legislature and forwarded to him for assent. In the meantime, civil rights groups and opposition parties have declared their intention to persist with their protests and plan to challenge the legislation in court
Source: The Hindu
