The Hindu: Published on 29th July 2025
Why in News?
The Maharashtra Legislature passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 during its monsoon session. The Bill aims to counter “urban Naxalism,” but has triggered controversy. Civil rights groups and some political leaders have criticized it as oppressive, vague, and prone to misuse, sparking public and legal concerns.
What is the Bill?
The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill is meant to prevent unlawful activities by Left-Wing Extremist (LWE) groups and their urban fronts. It seeks to:
Ban organisations suspected of supporting or aiding Maoist/Naxal forces.
Tackle the urban network of Maoist groups providing logistics, safe houses, and ideological support.
Enable the State to declare organisations illegal, suppress certain information "in public interest", and extend bans indefinitely.
The government claims that over 60 such urban Naxal organisations are active in the State and current laws are insufficient.
Background and Legislative Process:
Originally introduced at the end of the monsoon session in 2024 by the Mahayuti government.
Reintroduced by the newly elected BJP-led alliance during the winter session in December 2024.
A joint legislative committee reviewed over 12,500 public suggestions, but made only three minor amendments.
Passed by a voice vote in July 2025. Only the Communist Party of India (Marxist) formally opposed it.
Key Provisions of the Bill:
The State can declare organisations illegal without due judicial process.
Allows unlimited extension of bans on organisations.
Prohibits judicial review by lower courts.
Offers legal immunity to government officials acting “in good faith”.
Section 2(f) criminalises speech, gestures, writings, and symbols that “tend to interfere with public order” — without needing proof of violence or intent.
Objections and Concerns:
Civil rights groups, opposition leaders, and legal experts have flagged serious issues:
Ambiguous language could lead to suppression of free speech, legitimate dissent, and peaceful protests.
Ideological targeting of student unions, farmers’ groups, and civil society organisations is feared.
Absence of judicial safeguards can lead to unchecked state power.
Critics argue that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) already exists and is sufficient for dealing with extremist threats.
The Bill is seen as a tool to intimidate political opposition and restrict democratic rights.
What About Other States?
Maharashtra joins Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha, which have similar Public Security Acts. However, critics point out:
Those laws were enacted before the UAPA was strengthened.
Maharashtra has already limited Naxal activity to two districts, using existing laws.
This questions the need for a new, stringent legislation now.
Political and Legal Responses:
Only CPI(M) formally opposed the Bill in the Assembly.
Other opposition parties raised objections but did not vote against it.
Two delegations have met the Governor, requesting withholding of assent.
Civil society groups have announced they will challenge the law in court if passed.
What Next?
The Bill awaits the Governor’s assent to become a law.
Legal challenges and continued public protest are expected.
Civil rights activists will likely approach the courts for judicial review of the law’s constitutional validity.
Conclusion:
- The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill represents a high-stakes confrontation between national security priorities and civil liberties.
- While the government defends the law as necessary to counter urban Naxalism, critics see it as an overreach of state power that could have chilling effects on dissent and democratic freedoms.
- The final outcome may now depend on judicial scrutiny and political mobilization.
