Left organisations—including the CPI(ML), LNP, CPI, CPM, and PWP—along with various lawyers, students, and civil-society groups, have jointly raised serious concerns over the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024. In a letter to the 21-member Joint Select Committee on the Bill, chaired by Shri Chandrashekhar Bawankule, these organisations describe the legislation as draconian, repressive, and unconstitutional. The letter points out that, under the guise of combating what the Bill terms the “menace of naxalism” and organisations alleged to be involved in anti-state activities, it seeks to create a police state and suppress democratic voices.

Originally introduced on 11 July 2024, the legislation was re-introduced in the Maharashtra State Assembly on 18 December 2024 and was then referred to the Joint Select Committee, which is mandated to present its report in the February–March 2025 Assembly session.

The letter also notes that the Bill—as introduced in December 2024—has not been placed in the public domain, thereby undermining transparency. All submissions to the JPC are premised on the understanding that the December 2024 text is identical to the version first tabled in July 2024.

Below is the full text of the letter:

1.            The legislation is introduced avowedly to tackle “urban naxals”. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill states that this new law is needed to stop the “menace of naxalism” and counter the activities of “naxal organizations or similar organizations through their united front” that “are creating unrest among common masses to propagate their ideology of armed rebellion against the constitutional mandate and disrupts public order in the State”. The Bill empowers the Government to declare an organisation as “unlawful”. The consequences of this are four-fold.

Firstly, persons who are members or not members but associated with the organisation are liable to be punished.

Secondly, the Deputy Magistrate or Commissioner of Police can thereafter notify any place which was used for the activities of such organisation, following which possession of that place is taken and remain in the possession of the Government for as long as it decides.

Thirdly, the Deputy Magistrate or Commissioner of Police shall take possession of all movable property found within such notified place, including moneys, securities and other assets, which could be forfeited to the Government.

Fourthly, any moneys, securities and other assets will be forfeited to the Government on its satisfaction that it is being used or is intended to be used for such organisation.

The Bill also provides provisions for aggrieved persons to challenge these orders and actions of the State authorities. This, in sum and substance, is the “Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024. Besides these draconian consequences, the Bill is problematic at so many levels.

2.            Vagueness in definition at the cost of civil liberties and human rights: There are fundamental tenets and principles which guide the drafting of criminal statutes – principle of maximum certainty, principle of strict construction, principle of broader purposive approach, presumption of innocence, principle of fair labelling, principle of proportionality, principle of prior fault, nullum crime sine lege (no crime without law) and nullum poena sine lege (no punishment without law), the principle of non- retroactivity, right of Self Incrimination and the specificity of offences. It goes without saying that the formulation of criminal statutes proceed on the basis of these core principles with the crafting of provisions not inconsistent with them. It is shocking that this Bill falls short when gauged through the lens of these basic tenets and principles.

The Bill is marked by vague and broad definitions that are antithetical to criminal statutes.

An organisation can be declared an "unlawful organization" if it indulges in or has in pursuance of its objects abets or assists or gives aid, or encourages directly or indirectly through any medium, devices or otherwise, any “unlawful activity”. As such the centrepiece of the proposed legislation is the definition of unlawful activity”, which is extremely vague, broad and therefore problematic. It brings within ins fold any action which “constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace or tranquillity”; or even “interferes or has a tendency to interfere with the maintenance of public order”; or “interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law, or its established institutions and personnel”; or “encouraging or preaching disobedience of established law and its institutions”. Thus by this broad definition, every act of dissent including peaceful protests and non- violent civil disobedience could be criminalised. The basic freedom of speech and expression and right to dissent would be rendered illusory. Another aspect that is deeply problematic is that several of the terms used in this definition – danger, menace, encouraging, preaching, etc. are not defined in the Bill.

This vagueness in definition goes against the basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence, that a criminal act should be well defined and cannot be left for interpretation since that gives way to abuse of the law.

Vagueness also pervades the definition of “organisation” under the Bill. According to the Bill, an organisation is defined as meaning “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”. Going by this broad definition, the Government can use this law to target any group of people by claiming that they are part of some “organisation”, even though such organisation may not even exist!

3.            Unbridled powers to the Government and authorities: Having provided vague and broad definitions, which can be used and abused to quell dissent, the Bill bestows unbridled powers on the Government and authorities in the declaration of an organisation as an “unlawful organisation” and the consequences that flow thereon.

The Bill empowers the State Government to declare as an “unlawful organisation” any organisation if the Government is of the “opinion” that the organisation is, or has become, such! All it takes is for the Government to form such an opinion to altogether end the activities of that organisation. There is no burden of proof whatsoever that is required to be borne by the government in declaring any persons or group and their activities as unlawful. In effect, the Bill empowers the government to pursue any individual or organisation that it considers a threat, to declare all of its activities (including nonviolent activity, speech, or communications) illegal, to restrict its activities, and to punish some or all of its members.

To portray an illusion of procedural safeguards, the Bill contemplates an Advisory Board to review the Government’s decision of notifying an organisation as unlawful. The farce of due process is engrained in the provisions itself. While it is stated in the Bill that a notification declaring an “unlawful organisation” as such will not take effect until the Advisory Board has confirmed the decision of the Government, it also provides an exception to this “if the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances exist which render it necessary for the Government to declare an organisation to be an unlawful organisation with immediate effect”!

A question also arises at the possibility of the Advisory Board performing its duties in a fair and non-partisan manner. For this we need to examine the constitution of the Advisory Board, which according to the Bill shall consist of “three persons who are or have been or are qualified to be appointed as Judge of the High Court”. Retired High Court judges and advocates qualified to be appointed as an High Court Judge would form this Advisory Board. This Bill comes at a time when we have seen a sitting High Court judge resigned and contested on a BJP ticket, and a couple of others declare their allegiance to the RSS after retirement. What more needs to be said?

Similar unbridled powers are given to the Deputy Magistrate/ Commissioner of Police in regard to notifying “any place” which in their “opinion” was used for the activities of an organisation declared as an “unlawful organisation”.  Once this is done, any person living in the place stands to be evicted and possession transferred to the Government until such time that the organisation is not an “unlawful organisation” anymore. Such actions are also contemplated in regard to all movable property (including moneys, securities and other assets) found within such notified place, as also any moneys, securities and other assets even otherwise held to be used or intended to be used for such organisation. In all these scenarios, the Bill provides for an appeal by the aggrieved persons to the Government! So the Government that has formed the opinion and caused the declaration of an unlawful organisation would be Appellate Authority against any decision of the Deputy Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be. Thus, wide discretionary powers have been given to Deputy Magistrate/Commissioner of Police regarding immovable and moveable property (including moneys, security and other assets), without any real procedural safeguard or remedy.

4.            Arbitrary and disproportionate punishments: The penalties laid down in the Bill are grossly arbitrary.

Any person who is a member of an unlawful organization or takes part  in meetings or activities of any such organization or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for the organization, shall  be punished with imprisonment for a term upto three years and fine of upto three lakh rupees.

Any person who is not a member of an unlawful organization but who contributes/receives/ solicits any contribution or aid for such organization or harbours any member of such organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term upto two years and fine upto two lakhs rupees.

Any person who manages/assists in the management of an unlawful organization or promotes or assists in promoting a meeting of any such organization or indulges in any unlawful activity of such organization in any manner, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term upto three years and fine upto three lakhs rupees.

Any person who commits/abets/attempts to commit/plans to commit any unlawful activity of such unlawful organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term upto seven years and fine upto five lakhs rupees.

What is of great concern is that these offences are defined without any element of mens rea i.e. intent. Even a draconian law like the UAPA has the element of mens rea included in the definition of offences, by qualifying acts with the phrase “knowingly and intentionally”. The Bill is hence, draconian, and grants excessive, arbitrary powers, as it empowers the state to jail anyone who criticises it or stands against its policies.

Conclusion

Reading this Bill, one is reminded of a previous legislation sought to be introduced in India. It was the Public Safety Bill ushered in by the British colonial rulers in 1918. The purpose of  that legislation was to tackle the independence struggle and to suppress the genuine aspirations of the people. It was when the Assembly was considering this and the other proposed enactment, Trade Disputes Bill, that Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw grenades and pamphlets shouting slogans of ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ in the Parliament. The 1918 Public Safety Bill was finally rejected by the Assembly, with Motilal Nehru strongly rejecting it on behalf of the Indian National Congress.

The present legislation introduced by the Maharashtra Government has similar draconian intent being a piece of legislation intended to supress dissent and cause alarm amongst the citizenry. This attempt to enact the bogey of urban naxals into law, runs contrary to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and reintroduces colonial tools of control and suppression at the cost of democratic norms and ethos and ought to be rejected in toto by this Committee. It is necessary that the Committee grant us a personal hearing to present our views.