By Rucha Kanolkar
A controversial legislation that previously ignited intense public and political backlash is set to make a comeback in Maharashtra, this time in an amended form. The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, which the government describes as a vital instrument to counter the growing influence of urban Naxalism, is likely to be tabled during the upcoming Monsoon Session of the state legislature. However, the revised draft has already triggered renewed criticism from Opposition leaders and civil society groups, who argue that the Bill remains a veiled attack on civil liberties. The Bill was initially introduced in the Assembly on 20 December 2024. Following sustained criticism, a Joint Committee comprising 21 legislators later expanded to 25 was formed to review the draft. The committee sought inputs from the public, MPs, former legislators, and civil society organisations. After five rounds of deliberations, the revised draft was finalised and submitted on 26 June 2025. Opposition parties argue that the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, even in its revised form, poses a grave threat to democratic rights and civil liberties. They point to provisions that allow the government to declare any organisation unlawful via gazette notification with immediate effect, grant complete legal immunity to government actions, and make all offences under the Act cognisable and non-bailable where no FIR can be registered without approval from a DIG-rank officer. The Bill empowers authorities to seize property, funds, and assets without a prior court order, permits surveillance of suspected individuals, and holds dissolved organisations liable if former members remain active. Speaking on the issue, NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar faction) MLA Rohit Pawar pointed to contradictions in the government’s messaging on Naxalism. “Amit Shah says Naxalism will be eradicated in 1.5 years. But this Bill claims it’s rising that’s a contradiction. Why bring such a law now? This Bill gives sweeping powers to the government. Even peaceful protests by farmers or villagers over atrocities could be labelled as threats. That’s dangerous in a democracy,” Pawar said, further noting that of the over 11,000 objections submitted by citizens, only a few were acknowledged. “Instead of creating new laws like another ED or EOW, we should strengthen our police and cyber systems. This is just another tool to suppress Opposition voices,” he said. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray also expressed concern, stating, “This government is scared of the truth. This Bill is meant to jail those who speak the truth.” Speaking to national news agencies, he added, “Those who want to change or don’t respect the Constitution they are the real Urban Naxals and enemies of the country.” According to the official Statement of Objects and Reasons dated 16 December 2024, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis justified the legislation by stating that Naxalism is no longer restricted to remote tribal belts and is now “infiltrating urban areas” through support networks and frontal organisations. Citing seized Maoist literature that reportedly details the presence of “urban dens” in Maharashtra’s cities, the government claimed that existing laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) are insufficient to tackle this evolving threat. The Home Ministry has also advised states to enact state-specific security laws to break funding channels and curb urban Naxal influence. While states like Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha have already banned over 48 organisations under their respective Public Security Acts, Maharashtra has thus far lacked such legislation. What’s New in the Revised Draft? The revised Bill incorporates several significant amendments compared to the original 2024 version: • Title and Preamble: The scope has shifted from broadly addressing “unlawful acts” to specifically targeting “left-wing extremist organisations.” • Advisory Board: Earlier, the Board only comprised individuals eligible to be High Court judges. The new version mandates a three-member panel including a serving or retired High Court judge, a retired District Judge, and a Government Pleader. • Investigation Authority: The original draft allowed any Sub-Inspector and above to investigate cases under the Bill. The revised version restricts this to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank and above, aligning with provisions in UAPA and SC/ST Atrocities Act. • Property Seizure: Safeguards have been added, especially in cases involving women and children. The new version requires inventories to be prepared in the presence of witnesses before any seizure. • Funds and Asset Confiscation: While the earlier draft allowed confiscation without a clear appeals process, the revised version permits appeals within 15 to 30 days and mandates valuation by a competent officer. Recovery will follow land revenue procedures. • Deradicalisation Strategy: For the first time, the revised draft introduces a recommendation for a structured deradicalisation policy focused on youth. • Emergency Provisions: The government can now declare organisations as “unlawful” with immediate effect in urgent situations, provided reasons are recorded. Previously, such declarations required Advisory Board confirmation before taking effect. • Right to Appeal: Individuals or organisations affected can now appeal to the High Court within 30 days. The government also retains the power to review orders passed by the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police. • Definition of “Unlawful Acts”: The vague terminology in the old draftsuch as “public disorder” and “disobedience” has been replaced with more specific descriptors like “acts of violence,” “threats,” “incitement,” and “fundraising for extremist activities.” Key Provisions of the Bill • Section 3: The state government can declare any organisation unlawful through a gazette notification. In emergencies, the notification can take immediate effect, with subsequent confirmation by the Advisory Board. • Section 13: Prohibits criminal trespass at “notified places.” • Section 15: Designates all offences under the Act as cognisable and non-bailable. No FIR can be filed without the approval of a DIG-rank officer or above. • Sections 11 & 15(7-9): Authorise the state to seize property, funds, and assets, with recovery mechanisms akin to those used for land revenue. • Section 14: Grants complete legal immunity to the government for actions taken under the Bill. No legal proceedings can be initiated unless permitted by the High Court or Supreme Court. • Section 16: Prevents organisations from escaping liability by dissolving on paper. Liability continues if members remain active under a different banner. Despite the modifications, Opposition leaders remain staunchly opposed. Congress MLA Vijay Wadettiwar said, “We will not accept this bill in any form. It’s a tool to suppress voices, protests, and activism. We demand full withdrawal.” The Bill gained further political momentum after Shiv Sena MLC Manisha Kayande made a controversial statement in the Legislative Council, alleging that Urban Naxals had infiltrated the annual Ashadhi Wari pilgrimage under banners like Samvidhan Dindi and Paryavaran Wari. She claimed that street plays and speeches were being used to indoctrinate devotees and called for stringent action. Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde defended the Bill, saying, “The Public Security Bill is aimed at sleeper cell Naxalism. Action will be taken only against those who secretly support Naxals in court, financially, or otherwise. Innocents won’t be touched. Naxalism is nearly wiped out in Gadchiroli. Now, development, mining, and health projects are being pushed forward.” He also responded to the Ashadhi Wari controversy by stating, “Ashadhi Wari is our proud tradition. If any anti-social elements have infiltrated, we will investigate thoroughly.” Minister of State for Home Yogesh Kadam also weighed in, stating, “Urban Naxalism is a threat that breaks society from within. Complaints have been received. If people are misusing the Constitution to spread harmful information, action is necessary. This is the need of the hour. Once the CM and DCM introduce the Bill, we will support it wholeheartedly.” As the state gears up for the Monsoon Session, the future of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill remains uncertain. While the revised draft reflects certain legal safeguards and procedural clarity, its core intent and potential for misuse continue to raise fundamental questions about free speech, protest rights, and the balance between national security and civil liberties in India’s largest democracy.