Is the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill draconian?

What is your opinion about this Bill?

Yashovardhan Azad: First, I would like to know what is the “menace” that Devendra Fadnavis is talking about. We keep being told by the Home Ministry that Naxalism is on the wane and will disappear in a few years, so what is the need for the Bill? Second, is this law about frontal organisations, pamphlets, or about literature? Third, the Supreme Court had said (in 2011) that mere membership of a banned organisation does not constitute a crime (unless the person resorts or incites people to violence). Fourth, it is very difficult to define the terms in the law. Finally, the State already has laws such as MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999), UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967) and BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) [to combat all that the government is talking about], so why complicate the lives of the people? There is just no need for this Bill.

Editorial | Questionable intent: On the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024

Brinda Adige: What does the Maharashtra government mean by ‘urban Naxalism’? Naxalism is a communist insurgency. Extremists resort to violence using weapons, so there is trafficking in arms and ammunition. (There are laws to combat that.) The Bill talks about criminalising unlawful activity by individuals. But does it define what is unlawful? It only talks of dissent against the government, which could be any question that anyone raises holding the government and the bureaucracy accountable. The Bill also gives unilateral power to the police. The government is basically trying to control the people so that there are no questions asked of it.

Does the Bill have the potential to be misused against the most vulnerable sections of society? Let us say someone participates in a protest and that protest is later termed an unlawful activity by the police. What will be the remedy available for that person?

Yashovardhan Azad: Any law is liable to being misused. The nature of police functioning is such that it sometimes becomes very political, and that is unfortunate. The police can proceed under existing laws, but if you start making laws for everything, then even a common man can be picked up for dissenting against the government or the powers that be. For example, in Chhattisgarh, a similar law exists. Journalists protested saying even when they were reporting, for example, about the statements of Naxal organisations, they were being arrested. These are the kinds of frivolous things which can happen.

Can the Bill also be used against political opponents?

Brinda Adige: They (government) will never use it against political opponents. This Bill has primarily been tabled to target civilians, activists, and environmentalists. Let us say a group of people go on a hunger strike. This Bill mentions activities which “constitute a danger or a menace to public order, peace and tranquility”. What that means has been left to the police to decide. So, the police can consider this activity unlawful. But when politicians take out a rally on the streets and stop traffic, does that not interfere with public order? The whole world once looked up to at India as the nation that gained Independence through non-violent means, or Satyagraha. Now, even that (peaceful resistance) could be seen as an unlawful activity under this Bill.

Who is an ‘urban Naxal’? Is it anyone who expresses dissent or disagrees with the government or with the police?

Yashovardhan Azad: There are Naxal overground organisations which do exist. But terror funding, harbouring someone… all of this is already covered under the existing laws. It is confusing. The Bill does not strengthen any kind of legal framework. It is weak. It is, in fact, redundant.

Also read | ‘Urban Naxal’ bill is bogey to smother opposition before Maharashtra polls, say Congress, CPI(M)

The Bill was tabled on the penultimate day of the Assembly. Maharashtra goes to the polls in two months. The Bill will not be a reality until the Maha Yuti government is re-elected. So, what do you think could be the motive for introducing this Bill in the last days of the government and when it knows well that the Bill cannot be implemented right away?

Brinda Adige: I think the present government is trying to scare people by saying if there has been any kind of dissent against the establishment, then we are going to crack down on it if we win the elections. We (the people) have seen this happen with a lot of activists. They (government) have used words like ‘toolkits’ to describe how people come together. They have even planted evidence in people’s computers and phones and presented that in court saying, these people were involved in this and this is the evidence that we have. So right now, it is merely to scare people.

The people elect governments, elect politicians, to work for us. We cannot allow them to become our masters with such feudal laws. This Bill is unconstitutional and is clearly against the people of this land. I hope that the people of Maharashtra understand this. When politicians have money stashed in their house as well as arms and ammunition, is that not a threat? The Bill just finds an excuse for the government to say they have found an ‘urban Naxal’. Also, how will they decide who is an ‘urban Naxal’ and who is a ‘rural Naxal’? Is it per police jurisdiction?

In the Bhima Koregaon case, suspects have been in jail for years now and the trial is yet to commence. Where does police accountability lie in all this?

Yashovardhan Azad: Our judicial system is plagued by delayed trials and delayed investigations. There should be a provision for bail. The process itself should not become the punishment. The Court should be liberal in giving bail for trials that stretch on for years.

Do you think a judicial oversight is required when such legislation is passed?

Brinda Adige: Even before judicial oversight, I would like the elected representatives to follow procedures before tabling a bill. They should consult citizens. Why was there no public consultation? That is our constitutional right. We have a right to discuss the laws that we want for ourselves. After all, we all want our lives to become better. We are all seeking justice.

Mr. Fadnavis, while tabling the Bill in the Assembly, said similar laws exist in other left-wing extremism-affected States, such as Chhattisgarh and Telangana. Have these laws helped these States in curbing such activities?

Yashovardhan Azad: No, not really. In Telangana, Naxalism was controlled due to pointed action by the Greyhounds (an elite anti-Maoist force formed in 1989). The government has admitted (in Parliament) that left-wing extremism is now restricted to only 191 police stations in about 46 districts in 2021. It said incidents of left-wing extremism violence have reduced by 77% between 2010 and 2021. It is anachronistic to say that you are bringing in a Bill because other States have similar laws and that the problem of Naxalism will spillover into urban areas now. Have you consulted the people? Who has told you that this menace is increasing? Is it the police, the bureaucrats, the people, or the media? Other States are moving ahead but Maharashtra is going backwards.

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast.