The many issues with Maharashtra's proposed law against 'urban Naxals'

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024, introduced in the State Assembly in December last year has met with objections from human rights organisations, which have termed it “draconian�? Many groups and individuals have written to the state government to oppose the law being passed. The proposed law allows the prosecution of an individual, or an organisation, even if they are not part of an ‘unlawful organisation�?but are deemed to have contributed or solicited contributions for one. Harbouring a member of an unlawful organisation can result in a jail term.The bill has been widely criticised by opposition parties and human rights bodies. Here is a reproduction of the objections raised by well-known NGO People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL):People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Maharashtra registers our strong objections to the proposed Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024, introduced in the Maharashtra state Assembly on December 18, 2024.We are deeply concerned about the implications of this Bill for civil liberties and rights of the citizens to freedom of speech and expression, association and assembly, the right to protest peacefully and the right to privacy.PUCL Maharashtra is the state chapter of the PUCL, which is a premier national body set up for the defence of human rights in India. Established under the aegis of Jaya Prakash Narayan, the PUCL has worked tirelessly over the last almost 50 years to protect the powerless and help create a truly democratic and just society.In response to the public notice dated March 8, 2025 inviting suggestions/amendments to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024 (Assembly Bill No 33, 2024) by April 1, 2025, we submit our following comments for the consideration and scrutiny of the committee and urge you to take our submission on record.1. While introducing the Bill which is under scrutiny before your committee, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said that it would tackle Naxalism in rural areas and frontal organisations in urban areas “which work towards creating distrust about the country and its institutions.”We wish to place on record our deep misgivings about this sweeping statement. Indeed, the notion of “distrust ’is subjective and has no legal definition. Also, if citizens have any “distrust�?whatsoever, it is the responsibility of the government to dispel this distrust rather than criminalise citizens.In addition, we note that the Bill itself does not use the term “urban naxals�?at all and does not give it any legal identity. The term has been extensively used in popular discourse by those in the government to refer to anyone who speaks up or voices dissent. It was most recently used by the Chief Minister for satirist Kunal Kamra. Indeed, it is a loose slang and it would be dangerous to provide it any credence with a legal cloak.Thus, we fear that the Bill will be directed towards citizens who express their opposition to state policy and who may raise legitimate questions over any wrong-doings. Indeed, any such law would be used to legitimise the criminalisation of dissenting citizens, human rights defenders and political opponents.We believe that it is ironical that the Bill is named as a “public security�?bill or as it is called in Marathi, the “jan suraksha�?bill as it is not in any way concerned with the safety and security of citizens. Instead, it works against the safety and security of citizens. medium nocaption1200090922. Sec 2 (f): The Bill intends to provide for “more effective prevention of unlawful activities of individuals and organisations.�?The Bill states that an unlawful activity is “any action taken by an individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise�? By this, an “unlawful activity would constitute and/or include any form of expression - from spoken words, online messages or articles, artworks, demonstrations etc.However, the definition of an “unlawful activity�?is sweeping and over-broad. Even an act or expression of support or solidarity provided by a person or group of persons could constitute an unlawful activity. It has deliberately been kept loose so as to allow the widest interpretation and application.Besides, all freedoms protected under Article 19 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution can be curtailed - including freedom of speech and expression, association and assembly, press freedoms, academic freedoms etc. This is wholly dangerous, and can be potentially used against journalists, writers, filmmakers, artists and any citizen expressing their dissent or critiquing the government, in any form or manner. 1200091343. Sec 2(f)(i): Again, the definition of an ‘unlawful activity�?includes such ‘action�?that can constitute a danger or ‘menace�?to public order, peace and tranquility and ‘of encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions.�?This is again completely sweeping and arbitrary and could be deployed to silence any legitimate and peaceful protest over any issue. There is no understanding of what exactly constitutes a “menace�? The right of citizens to record their peaceful objections to policies or laws that they may perceive as harmful and to express and demonstrate their objections is being taken away by this repressive provision.4. Other provisions of what constitute ‘unlawful activity�?relate to the use of violence or criminal force. But these activities are already dealt with very strongly in existing laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and do not require a separate law to address them.5. Sec 2(d): The Bill provides a very broad definition of an “organisation�?as ‘any combination, body or group of persons, whether known by any distinctive name or not, and whether registered under any relevant law or not, and whether governed by any written constitution or not.’This is a deliberate and dangerous conflation of any group of people who come together for any purpose. Even an innocuous and completely informal book club, cultural group, citizens�?forum or an ALM (advanced locality management) of residents to take up civic issues would fall under this rubric and could attract penal provisions for any democratic activity which questions the government or seeks to hold it accountable. medium120009435The Constitution guarantees the right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies under Article 19(1)(c). We believe that the hidden purpose of this expansive definition is to mark out, monitor and potentially criminalise any attempt by citizens to “organise�?themselves collectively for any purpose whatsoever, informally or otherwise and to also discourage citizens from organizing themselves from any cause, thereby causing a chilling effect for any kind of democratic activity and expression.6. Sec 2(f)(vi): Criminalising encouraging or preaching “disobedience�?�?the civil disobedience movement has a long and hoary history in India’s freedom struggle. Millions of people, including scores from what was then Bombay, joined the civil disobedience calls to oppose British regulations and courted arrest. Indeed, people of Maharashtra were in the forefront of these struggles and we are today, inheritors of this proud past. It is highly ironical that the Maharashtra government is seeking to penalise and criminalise peaceful, democratic, protest as disobedience and as an unlawful activity.7. Sec 2(g): Taken along with the definition of an organisation and of unlawful activity, it is clear that any organisation can be deemed to be “unlawful�?merely for coming together as a group and for raising a voice about any issue.8. Sec 3(1) and Sec 3(2): The Bill lays down completely opaque provisions by which the Maharashtra government may declare any organisation as “unlawful�? The government may issue a notice in the government gazette but it is shocking that this is an entirely arbitrary process and without any scrutiny whatsoever. No hearing whatsoever is provided before issuing such a notification against the organisation. This is an alarming overreach of powers and completely open to misuse. 1200096039. Sec 8(1-4), Sec 10(1-8): The Bill has several provisions on the disposal of properties and money, assets, securities and even livestock and perishable items of those accused, in a clear attempt to hit at their and their family’s economic condition and incapacitate them financially. Even otherwise the provisions can lead to penalizing innocent co-sharers and family members and rendering them homeless and without means, even before the accused is found guilty of any offence under the proposed law. This is inherently unjust and, especially for adivasis or marginalised sections of society, will render any efforts to defend oneself from charges next to impossible and will push them back further to the margins.10. Sec 9(1-2): The Bill has also delegated powers to a District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police or any officer authorized by them, who can notify a particular area or a particular building which in their opinion is used for “unlawful activities�? and then proceed to take possession of it, seize all articles in it and evict all persons in it.We believe that this is a draconian provision and open to harassment of citizens, besides rendering them homeless and instantly reducing them to penury. In fact, the Supreme Court has, in orders related to “bulldozer (in)justice�?have issued guidelines against such punitive and “high-handed�?behaviour of officers against those accused. But these repressive and punitive provisions in the Bill which in effect provide for dispossession without following due process, would completely undermine and fall foul of the Supreme Court guidelines and cannot be passed. 11. Sec 5 (1) and (2), Sec 6 (1-5): The Bill provides for an Advisory Board to review the declaration of any organisation as ‘unlawful�? However, the process clearly undermines and robs such a “review" of any meaning.Firstly, the Advisory Board is set up by the very same government, comprising judges of the High Court, or any person ‘eligible to be appointed as a judge of the High Court�? to review its own acts! We are apprehensive that this Advisory Board will comprise pro-government persons and will be in danger of excluding independent legal experts or members of civil society, and hence wont function as an independent and impartial body, without the influence of the executive.Secondly, the government “may�?send a reference to the Advisory Board within six weeks of the government notification, but even this step has a rider: that the government may not disclose any “fact�?if it considers it against the public interest.Thirdly, the organisation deemed ‘unlawful�?is granted an opportunity to make a representation to the government only within 15 days of such notification.Fourthly, taking absurdity of process to its height, personal hearings before the Advisory Board are provided only to the authorized office bearer of the organisation, which is deemed to be unlawful, thus putting any person identified as a member of such an organisation at risk of immediate arrest! medium12000965112. The Bill gives excessive powers to the Government to issue orders for investigation. This can act as a warrant to empower police officers to enter into the premise of any individual and conduct searches. This raises the fear that individuals can be targeted and accused of unlawful activity merely for possessing of books deemed controversial. It is also a violation of the fundamental right to privacy of such individuals.13. Sec 8 (1-4), Sec 15 (1-2): The Bill has a list of penalties for different crimes and these are arbitrarily defined with the accused being variously liable for imprisonment of two to seven years. All offences are cognisable and non-bailable. Mere membership of an unlawful organisation is punishable by three years; and even a person who is not a member, but who contributes, solicits contributions, harbours a member of an unlawful organisation would be punishable by imprisonment of two years.14. According to the Bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons, the States of Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have enacted similar acts for the prevention of “unlawful activities�?and banned 48 frontal organisations. Furthermore, the government has stated that such “unlawful activities need to be controlled by effective lawful means.”However, to state that the existing laws are ineffective or inadequate to tackle the existing menace of Naxalism is erroneous and misleading. Unfortunately, despite all proclamations of successive governments and ministers, the truth is that such laws have not proved effective in curbing unlawful activities but have been used against citizens exercising their right to dissent. Indeed, in multiple reports by both journalists and human rights organisations, the manner in which these draconian laws have been misused has been well documented.The Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam (2005) (“Chhatisgarh Act�? and the Andhra Pradesh Special Public Security Act (1992) received extensive criticism for being used to target journalists, lawyers, environmental defenders, citizen activists and adivasi protestors who have dissented against state action. A constitutional challenge to the Chhattisgarh Act is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the instant Bill has been made even more overbroad to expand its ambit to criminalise any dissent allegedly falling under “unlawful activity�?or connected with any informal group alleged to be an “unlawful organisation�?or its alleged member. It would serve as a tool in the hands of the state and law enforcement to target individuals for participating in meetings or indulging in legitimate acts of dissent through online or offline mode.As a responsible civil society organisation working on civil liberties and democratic rights, we are very apprehensive that the deployment of such repressive legislations will actually be misused against citizens of Maharashtra and the legitimate expression of the state’s rich and vibrant social and political life. Besides, rules for this proposed law have not been released in public domain and will be framed later, and we fear this will make the application of these draconian provisions even more unjust and arbitrary.Sir, Maharashtra has a long and illustrious history of social reform. It has always been at the forefront of political movements for democracy, before and after Independence. The people of Maharashtra have worked hard and sacrificed their lives for freedom. We believe that this Bill will only seek to destroy this historical legacy of democratic spirit and enquiry.In sum, we believe that the provisions of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, are unconstitutional, over broad, arbitrary and inherently allow for misuse. We reject the Bill outright and demand that it is withdrawn forthwith.