In News:

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, passed by the Legislative Assembly, aims to combat “urban Maoism” and left-wing extremism (LWE). Modeled on the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Bill introduces stringent provisions to identify and dismantle urban support networks aiding insurgents. However, it has generated significant legal and civil liberty concerns due to its vague definitions, broad executive powers, and pre-trial punitive measures.

Understanding Urban Maoism

Urban Maoism refers to the strategy of the banned CPI (Maoist) to infiltrate cities and mobilise intellectuals, students, professionals, and minorities through NGOs, protests, and media campaigns. This ideology, outlined in the 2004 document Strategies and Tactics of Indian Revolution (STIR), aims to build urban logistical support for rural armed struggles while operating under the legal guise of activism, journalism, or civil society work. Notable examples include the Elgar Parishad case (2018), where activists were arrested for alleged Maoist links following Bhima Koregaon violence.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The Bill allows the government to declare an organisation “unlawful” and penalises individuals associated with it—whether through membership, fundraising, or aiding operations. It defines “unlawful activity” as interference with public order, use of criminal force against officials, incitement to disobedience of the law, or even disrupting communication systems. Punishments range from 2 to 7 years of imprisonment along with fines. All offences are cognizable and non-bailable.

A major provision allows pre-trial forfeiture of property belonging to accused persons or organisations, with only 15 days’ notice. While the affected party can appeal to the High Court within 30 days, the initial declaration is confirmed only by an Advisory Board comprising High Court-qualified persons.

Constitutional and Legal Concerns

Civil society and legal experts argue that the Bill risks criminalising legitimate dissent and peaceful protest, given its ambiguous phrasing like “practising disobedience” or “generating apprehension in the public.” Unlike the UAPA, which requires a higher threshold for proving threat to national integrity, Maharashtra’s Bill introduces lower benchmarks that could conflate dissent with sedition.

The pre-trial forfeiture of property mirrors provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), yet lacks equivalent safeguards like adjudication by a quasi-judicial body. Moreover, principles of natural justice, such as presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the state, appear diluted.

Broader Implications

While the state’s intent to counter urban LWE influence is valid—especially given the shift of Maoist strategies from forested hinterlands to urban centres—the means adopted pose risks to constitutional rights and federal norms. The legislation exemplifies a growing trend where extraordinary laws designed for national threats are adapted at the state level, potentially disrupting the balance between security imperatives and civil liberties.

Conclusion

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill reflects the complex challenge of safeguarding national security while upholding democratic freedoms. Any future enactment must incorporate judicial oversight, clearer definitions, and proportionate safeguards to ensure that the fight against extremism does not erode the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.