What is Maharashtra’s new security Bill?

What is the Bill About?

• Bill Name: Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024
• Objective (Govt’s Stance): Tackle ‘urban Naxalism’ and left-wing extremist (LWE) frontal organisations, particularly in urban Maharashtra.
• Justification: Govt claims 60+ Naxal-linked front organisations operate in the state, inadequately addressed by existing laws.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance )

Legislative Timeline

• Introduced: Monsoon Session, late 2024
• Revived: December 20, 2024 (after Mahayuti’s return to power)
• Public Feedback: 12,500+ suggestions/objections received
• Changes Made: Only 3 minor amendments incorporated
• Passed: Voice vote, July 2025
• Status: Awaiting Governor’s assent

Key Provisions

• Expansive Definition of “Illegal Activity”: Includes gestures, expressions, or signs that may “tend to interfere with public order” or “cause concern”.
• No Ban Limits: Organisations can be banned indefinitely.
• Executive Power Expansion: Govt can unilaterally declare organisations as “unlawful”.
• Protection to Officials: Immunity for actions “in good faith”.
• Restricted Judicial Access: Lower courts barred from jurisdiction.
• Opaque Governance: State can withhold information “in public interest”.

Criticism & Concerns

Ambiguity & Overbreadth

• Terms like “cause concern” or “interfere with order” are vague and subjective.
• May criminalise peaceful protest, satire, critical expression, or civil disobedience.

Democratic and Civil Rights Risks

• Could be misused against farmers’ protests, student groups, NGOs, and opposition voices.
• CPI(M) formally opposed, other parties raised concerns but abstained from voting.
• Critics warn of it becoming a tool for silencing dissent post-2024 elections.

Comparative Context

• Similar State Laws: Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh have older Public Security Acts.
• However:
  • These laws pre-date a strengthened UAPA.
  • Critics argue UAPA already covers most threats the Bill addresses.
  • Govt itself notes LWE now confined to 2 districts, questioning the need for new powers.

Legal & Constitutional Implications

• Article 19: Potential infringement on freedom of speech, association, and expression.
• Article 21: Due process and fair trial standards may be undermined.
• Article 14: Risk of arbitrary classifications and unequal application.
• Curtailment of Judicial Oversight: Blocking lower courts may delay access to remedies, increasing legal costs.

Future Scenarios & Impacts

• Legal Challenge Likely: Could face PILs in High Court or Supreme Court.
• Possible Domino Effect: Other states may replicate the law if upheld.
• Public Trust Issues: Civic backlash and legal activism may rise.
• Governance Risk: May fuel polarisation and erode federal and democratic norms.

Core Tensions

Conclusion

• The Bill sits at the intersection of national security and constitutional freedoms.
• With broad executive authority, vague definitions, and minimal judicial checks, it raises substantial concerns around misuse and erosion of democratic dissent.
• The Governor’s assent and ensuing judicial review will determine its constitutionality and long-term implications.