In August 2024, the Maharashtra government introduced the Special Public Security Bill aiming to address “urban Naxalism”— essentially urban-based supporters or sympathizers of Naxalite ideologies. The Bill seeks to allow the state to criminalize “unlawful activity” by individuals and prescribe stringent punishments against organizations it deems unlawful. This move has sparked significant debate regarding its necessity, potential overlap with existing laws, and implications for civil liberties.
The Bill expands the definition of “unlawful activity” to include actions such as:
- Being a menace to public order.
- Interfering with the administration of law.
- Generating fear and apprehension in the public.
- Preaching disobedience of law.
These broad and vaguely defined terms have raised concerns that legitimate dissent, protest, or even mere criticism of the government could be construed as unlawful activities under the proposed law. Additionally, the Bill grants the government powers to evict accused individuals from premises and seize bank accounts prior to the commencement of a trial, raising questions about due process and the presumption of innocence.
Critics argue that the Bill’s objectives are already addressed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, which serves as India’s principal anti-terror legislation. The UAPA provides a comprehensive legal framework to deal with unlawful activities and terrorist organizations. The introduction of a state-specific law with similar provisions may lead to legal redundancies and potential conflicts between state and central legislation.
The Bill’s expansive definitions and stringent provisions have been criticized for potentially infringing upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) and protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21). The lack of clear distinctions between active members of unlawful organizations and individuals merely associated with them could lead to the criminalization of innocent individuals.
Judicial precedents emphasize the need for precision in drafting laws that impose severe penalties. The Delhi High Court, in the 2020 Delhi riots case, stated that “the more stringent a penal provision, the more strictly it must be construed,” underscoring that the reach of anti-terror laws should not extend to ordinary crimes or activities that can be managed by standard law enforcement mechanisms.
Following the tabling of the Bill, the Maharashtra legislative assembly’s monsoon session was prorogued, and with state elections scheduled for November 2024, the Bill has effectively lapsed. However, the possibility of its revival in the future remains, depending on the composition and priorities of the new government.
While the intent to address security concerns is legitimate, the proposed Special Public Security Bill, 2024, raises significant legal and constitutional issues. The potential for misuse against legitimate dissent and the overlap with existing laws like the UAPA necessitate a thorough re-evaluation of the Bill’s provisions. Any legislative measure aimed at enhancing public security must carefully balance the state’s security interests with the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that the democratic fabric of society remains intact.
Written by Anushka Sriram
