Recently, Maharashtra passed the Special Public Security Bill to counter ‘urban Naxalism’, sparking criticism for being vague and potentially oppressive.

Key Provisions of the Bill

• Targeting Frontal Organisations of Naxal Groups: It claims to address the increasing presence of urban Naxal groups that support armed cadres through logistics and shelter in Maharashtra’s cities.
• Declaration of Organisations as ‘Unlawful’: The government is empowered to declare any organisation unlawful if it suspects it of threatening public security, without requiring immediate evidence of violence.
• Indefinite Ban: The Bill allows the extension of bans on organisations indefinitely, with no specified limit on duration, raising concerns about unchecked executive power.
• Limited Judicial Oversight: Lower courts are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Bill, restricting easy legal recourse for those accused or affected by its provisions.
• Good Faith Protection: It provides a full legal immunity for State officials acting under the provisions of the Bill.
• Similar Laws in Other States: Maharashtra joins Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha in enacting a special Public Security Act.
  • However, civil rights groups argue that these laws were introduced before the existence of stricter national legislation like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

What is Urban Naxalism?

• The term “urban naxals” is loosely applied to individuals in urban areas who support and promote Naxalite ideology through activism and advocacy, while active naxals engage in combat in the jungles and extensive Maoist-controlled regions.
• Origin: The term ‘Urban Naxals’, which has gained popularity since 2018, was first used to describe anti-establishment protesters and other dissenters in the wake of the crackdown on left-wingers and other liberals involved  in the Elgaar Parishad case in Maharashtra. 
  • It is one of the two ongoing investigations related to the Bhima Koregaon violence of January 1, 2018.

Unlawful Activity

• Any act (spoken, written, symbolic) that tends to interfere with public order or causes concern.
• Example: Generating and distributing WhatsApp forwards against the government and its bodies which may incite riot or unrest.
• Legal Provision: Section 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 addresses the offense of concealing with intent to facilitate a design to wage war against the Government of India.

Frontal Organisations

• They are  non-armed, overground bodies allegedly associated with extremist or banned groups providing logistical or ideological support.
• Legal Gap: No standard legal definition in Indian law, making it prone to arbitrary interpretation.

Public Order

• Public order refers to the general state of peace, safety, and good conduct within a community, ensuring that people can live together harmoniously without fear of harm or disruption.
• Constitutional Provision: Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the State can impose reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of public order.

Criticism of the Provisions

• Vague Definitions: Terms like “unlawful activity” and “public order” are loosely defined, allowing subjective interpretation and potential misuse.
• Limits Judicial Oversight : Excluding lower courts limits accessible legal remedies for those affected.
• No Time Limit on Bans: Indefinite bans on organisations without periodic review can lead to prolonged suppression of lawful associations.
• Immunity for Officials: Granting blanket protection for actions taken in “good faith” undermines accountability.
• Suppression of Dissent: The Bill risks criminalising legitimate dissent, activism, and protest, infringing on rights under Article 19.

Way Forward

• Use Existing Legal Frameworks: Enforce UAPA and IPC/BNS provisions instead of creating overlapping laws.
  • Strict laws need to be applied through specialised Agencies to avoid arbiteriness as in case of UAPA which is enforced by the MHA with National Investigation Agency (NIA) and state governments.
• Ensure Judicial Safeguards: Restore jurisdiction of lower courts and enable periodic review of bans.
• Wider Public and Legislative Consultation: Incorporate feedback from civil society and legal experts through open deliberation.
• Clear and Narrow Definitions: Define terms precisely to prevent arbitrary or politically motivated enforcement.

Conclusion

While the government claims the Bill is necessary for public safety, its broad and ambiguous clauses risk curtailing fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

DOWNLOAD PDF