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
| Dimension | Security Justification | Civil Liberties Concern |
| Public Order | Urban Naxal threat | Peaceful dissent targeted |
| Legal Framework | Faster, stronger action | Weak due process & oversight |
| Executive Powers | Administrative efficiency | Risk of authoritarian overreach |
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.
