​Danger of thought: On the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 

The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 follows the disturbing pattern of executive overreach in the name of security. Existing laws are often misused against political opponents and critics of the ruling party, including commentators. Charges are often vague and sweeping, and the process itself becomes the punishment in many of these cases. Given this pattern, the move by Maharashtra’s Mahayuti government led by the BJP to create an entire law to criminalise a certain kind of thought portends danger to freedom and democracy. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said that the new law would only target those who try to undermine the constitutional order, but the possibility — indeed the probability — of its misuse is apparent. The State says that it is seeking to prevent Maoists from brainwashing youth, professionals, and civil servants through front organisations. As in the proposed law, which is now awaiting the assent of the Governor before coming into force, the State government can declare any suspect “organisation” as an “unlawful organisation”. Offences under the proposed law include membership of such organisations, fundraising on their behalf, managing or assisting them, and committing unlawful activities.

The Bill’s focus is on people and organisations that act as a front for Maoists, and what is unlawful is so broadly defined that anyone can be its target. Among other things, according to the Bill, ‘unlawful’ is “any action taken by an individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation or otherwise, which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility”. Offences are cognisable and the accused can be arrested without a warrant. Punishment includes jail terms of two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh. The State argues that Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts and banned 48 Naxal frontal organisations. The Opposition parties offered feeble resistance to the Bill and raised some broad concerns regarding its misuse but it was passed in the Assembly through a voice vote. As an afterthought, the Congress and the Shiv Sena (UBT) protested on the floor when it was taken up in the Legislative Council. The Bill had gone through a long deliberative process, but as it turns out, all parties appeared to be in agreement, barring the lone CPI (M) MLA who protested against it on the floor of the Assembly. The idea that thought and speech, howsoever unpalatable they might be to the ruling establishment, should be policed poses a grave danger for India as an open society.