Why Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, is being seen as a threat to civil liberty

The Mahayuti government on Thursday (July 11) tabled the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 in the state Assembly to curb what they describe as ‘urban Naxalism’.

Tabled in the run-up to the Maharashtra Assembly election due later this year, the Bill proposes more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals, organisations and 48 banned frontal organisations.

The Bill has been formulated on the lines of the Public Security Act passed by Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha for effectively dealing with unlawful activities of Naxal frontal organisations or similar bodies.

However, the progress of the Bill will most likely depend on the next government of Maharashtra as it has been brought at the fag end of the state Assembly’s term. The day after the Bill was tabled, the monsoon session of the Assembly was prorogued. The House is not scheduled to meet again before the elections in the state, which will be held by November.

The Bill will lapse with the dissolution of the Assembly, and will have to be reintroduced in the new House unless the current government brings an ordinance to implement it in its term.

What does the new Bill propose?

The Bill gives the government the power to declare any suspect “organisation” as an “unlawful organisation”.

It prescribes four offences for which an individual can be punished: (i) for being a member of an unlawful organisation, (ii) when not a member, for raising funds for an unlawful organisation, (iii) for managing or assisting in managing an unlawful organisation and, (iv) for committing an “unlawful activity”.

These four offences carry jail terms of up to two to seven years, along with fines ranging from up to Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The offence relating to committing an unlawful activity carries the toughest punishment: imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh.

Offences under the proposed law are cognisable, which means arrests can be made without a warrant, and non-bailable.

How has the government justified the introduction of the Bill?

The Maharashtra government has argued that the legislation was necessary to control the unlawful activities of frontal organisations by effective legal means as the existing laws are ineffective and inadequate to tackle the Naxalism menace.

The Bill’s objective reads, “The spread of active frontal organisations of the Naxal groups gives constant and effective support in terms of logistics and safe refuge to their armed cadres. The seized literature of Naxals shows ‘safe houses’ and ‘urban dens’ of the Maoist network in the cities of the State of Maharashtra. The activities of Naxal organisations or similar organisations through their united front are creating unrest among common masses to propagate their ideology of armed rebellion against the constitutional mandate and disrupting public order in the State.”

What constitutes unlawful activity under the Maharashtra Bill?

The following acts, either written or spoken, constitute unlawful activity under the Maharashtra Bill:

“(i) which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity; or

(ii) which interferes or tends to interfere with maintenance of public order; or

(iii) which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or

iv) which is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force or otherwise to any public servant including the forces of the State Government or the Central Government in exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant and Forces ; or

(v) indulging in or propagating, acts of violence, vandalising or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public, or indulging in or encouraging, the use of firearms, explosives or other devices or disrupting communications by rail, road, air or water; or

(vi) encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or

(vii) collecting money or goods to carry out any one or more of the unlawful activities mentioned above…”

Why objections are being raised against the provisions of the Bill?

The provisions of the Bill have drawn flak from various quarters for being “draconian”, and concerns have been raised over its wide definitions. “This is nothing but to muzzle protests,” former Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan said.

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has said that the Bill is “unconstitutional and (has been) brought with a view to curb dissent”. The (PUCL), Maharashtra, strongly objecting to what it calls “repressive and unconstitutional” Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024, has demanded the proposed law be scrapped in its entirety. In a statement, PUCL noted that the broad and non-descript label of “urban Naxal” has been used, which is actually a “common slur used for any citizen who expresses their opposition to state policy or is not aligned with right-wing majoritarian views.”

“The state government through this law, aims to legitimise the criminalisation of dissenting citizens, human rights defenders and political opponents. The Bill seeks to suppress political opponents, public protests, people’s movements, and civil society and human rights activists, journalists and lawyers,” PUCL said in its statement.

The organisation has also resented broad and vague definitions of terms like ‘unlawful activity’ that could encompass non-violent civil disobedience and peaceful protests.

The PUCL also pointed out that the draft of the Bill was not made available for public scrutiny or objections, nor was it vetted by legal experts. It flayed the tabling of the Bill in a haste just two months before the assembly polls, suggesting suspect motives behind its introduction during this critical time of democratic engagement.

The organisation emphasised that existing laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) already address unlawful activities and terrorism.

The timing of this new Bill, according to PUCL, appears to be aimed at suppressing political opponents, public protests, people’s movements, civil society, and human rights activists, rather than addressing violent or terrorist activities.