At least seven sections of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 are either vague or bypass courts or give overriding powers to the State machinery, which is far beyond the objective of curbing Naxalism that the ordinance is aimed at, said civil society members.
The State government tabled the Bill in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on July 11. Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Law and Judiciary Devendra Fadnavis justified the requirement by saying that Naxalism is not limited to remote areas of the State but has reached the cities through frontal organisations.
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.”
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 are already in force in the State. But the government has said that existing laws are ineffective and inadequate to curb and control these organisations in the urban areas through “effective legal means”.
Such a special legislation has been passed in Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha to control “unlawful activities” of such organisations and banned 48 frontal organisations. But members of the civil society are of the view that the proposed legislation has far reaching consequences.
“This is an anti-people Bill. If the Opposition does not stop it, the Bill must be fought on the streets. Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill will turn Maharashtra into a police State and outlaw dissent as well as protestors as urban Naxals,” Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, said.
Activist Teesta Setalvad said seven sections either violate human rights or are vague in definition. “This is a draconian anti-constitutional proposed law. Maharashtra follows Jammu & Kashmir, Chhattisgarh and Odisha to table a third and draconian law avowedly to tackle ‘urban Naxals’ not a legally defined but a politically stigmatising term used by proto-fascist forces to criminalise protest and dissent, jail writers, academics, activists, Opposition leaders, etc.,” Ms. Setalvad said.
According to her, the Bill has vague and broad definitions of ‘an unlawful activity’. For instance, Section 2 (f) (i) to (vii) will be prone to malicious misuse. “For example, the interpretation of the Section 2 (f) (i) which constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility’ is problematic. The word ‘menace’ has been used. Menace is not defined anywhere. Dictionary meaning is ‘dangerous act of person’. So, anything can be dangerous and brought under the Act. This loosening of definitions to make and include should be well denied, not left to be interpreted loosely by the police,” she said.
Section 5 of the Bill proposes constituting an advisory board that will have ex-judges or anyone who qualifies to be a judge can also be appointed. Furthermore, Section 8 states that those individuals who are not even members of ‘unlawful’ organisations can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to two years along with a fine of up to ₹2 lakh for contributing or soliciting any aid or contribution or harbouring any member of such organisations.
“Section 9 provides draconian powers to the District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police. Under this, they can take possession of or seize any notified area and evict persons from that premises. If any women and children live there ‘reasonable time’ is the only protection given to them,” Ms. Setalvad said.
The journalist fraternity has demanded the Bill’s withdrawal as it poses a serious threat to freedom of expression and speech. It can criminalise reportage of existing socio-economic inequalities and people’s legitimate protests.
Indra Kumar Jain, general secretary of Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists, said, “The Bill’s definition of ‘unlawful’ is broad and arbitrary, bringing into its net any ‘action taken by an individual or organisation whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation’. Arguably, the provisions could be invoked against journalists reporting on natural disasters, a health epidemic or even the collapse of a bridge.”
Mr. Jain recalled that during the Covid-19 lockdown, “more than 50 journalists were arrested or charged with spreading panic for merely reporting on administrative failures or the plight of citizens struggling to return home.”
In Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, where Public Security Act is in force, cases have been filed against journalists for their professional work. In Chhattisgarh, for instance, journalists have been charged under the Act for their reporting on the conflict between security forces and Maoists.
The Maharashtra unit of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) issued a statement on Saturday wherein it has defined the Bill as repressive, unconstitutional, overbroad, arbitrary and inherently allows for misuse.
“The draft of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill was not made available in the public domain nor made open to public scrutiny and objections; nor was it vetted by any body of legal experts and practitioners. The tabling of the Bill in haste in the last few days of the monsoon session, just two months before the State Assembly elections are to be held, is itself indicative of the opacity of the entire process and suspect motives behind its introduction,” read a statement signed by advocates Mihir Desai, president, and Lara Jesani, general secretary of PUCL.
PUCL said the penalties are “so arbitrarily defined in the Bill that a particular act could be variously liable for imprisonment of two, three or seven years... while taking possession of any moveable or immovable property, no notice or opportunity of hearing is provided.”
The Maharashtra Assembly’s monsoon session concluded on July 12 without the passing of this Bill. Within only two days of introducing it, objections were voiced by the civil society. However, no formal statement has been issued so far by the State government if it will be reintroduced.
