Maharashtra Bill to Curb Urban Naxalism, Key Provisions and Issues

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 introduces a legal framework to address "urban Naxalism" by enabling the state to declare left-wing extremist organizations unlawful, authorizing non-bailable offences and fund seizures, while mandating review by an advisory board to prevent misuse.

Table of Contents

Context: The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed by a voice vote the stringent Special Public Security Bill, 2024, that seeks to tackle “unlawful activities of left-wing extremist organisations”.

What is the New Maharashtra Bill to Curb Urban Naxalism?

The proposed bill in Maharashtra introduces stringent measures against what it classifies as “unlawful organisations” and activities:

Power to Declare Organisations Unlawful: The government can designate suspect organisations as “unlawful.”
Prescribed Offences:
- For being a member of an unlawful organisation,
- When not a member, for raising funds for an unlawful organisation,
- For managing or assisting in managing an unlawful organisation and,
- For committing an “unlawful activity“.
Punishments: These offences carry imprisonment ranging from 2-7 years and fines between Rs 2- 5 lakh.
Legal Process: Offences under this bill are cognizable (arrests can be made without a warrant) and non-bailable.

What is Urban Naxalism?

Urban Naxalism refers to the support, advocacy, or facilitation of Maoist ideologies and activities within urban settings by intellectuals, activists, students, and professionals.
The term ‘Naxalism‘ originates from the Naxalbari uprising in West Bengal in 1967, where a group of Maoist insurgents began a violent rebellion against the Indian state, advocating for a communist revolution through armed struggle.

Key Provisions in the Special Public Security Bill, 2024

Definition of Unlawful Activity:
- Interfering with public order or law administration
- Overawing public servants by criminal force
- Acts of violence, vandalism, or generating public fear
- Disrupting communications (road, rail, air, water)
- Encouraging or practising disobedience to law
Powers to Declare Organisations Unlawful: Government can declare organizations “unlawful”
- Confirmation required by an Advisory Board (three HC judges/qualified persons)
Penal Provisions: Punishments: 2–7 years’ imprisonment and fines for membership, raising funds, managing, or assisting unlawful organisations, or committing “unlawful activity”
Nature of Offences: Cognizable and non-bailable (arrest without warrant possible)
Forfeiture of Property: District Magistrate/Police Commissioner can seize/evict properties used for unlawful activities, with 15 days’ notice—even before conviction
- Special provision for women/children to vacate
Appeal Mechanism: Affected party can appeal forfeiture to High Court within 30 days

Issues Associated with Maharashtra’s ‘Urban Maoism’ Bill

Overbroad and Vague Definitions: Terms like “practising disobedience” and “disrupting communication” can criminalise legitimate protests, strikes, or dissent.
Potential for Misuse: Wide discretionary powers to police and administration, risking targeting of activists, journalists, or political opponents.
Weak Procedural Safeguards: Property can be seized before conviction, violating the presumption of innocence; reversal of burden of proof is reversed on the accused.
Comparison with Central Laws: UAPA and PMLA have higher thresholds for what constitutes “terror” or “proceeds of crime” and quasi-judicial checks; this Bill covers a wider net with weaker checks.
Impact on Civil Liberties: Risk of stifling free speech, assembly, and lawful dissent; possibility of infringing on constitutional rights (Articles 19 & 21).
Judicial Review Limited: While an appeal is possible, initial property loss or arrest can occur before judicial scrutiny, causing hardship.

Differences from the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)

Like the UAPA, the proposed Maharashtra bill allows the state to label associations as unlawful.
Confirmation Process:
- UAPA: A tribunal led by a High Court judge confirms the state’s declaration.
- Maharashtra Bill: An advisory board with 3 members, qualified to be High Court judges, confirms the declaration.
Definition of “Unlawful Activity”:
- UAPA: Includes acts threatening India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Maharashtra Bill: Sets a lower threshold for what constitutes “unlawful activity.”
Procedural Differences in Prosecution:
- Under UAPA, delays in obtaining sanction for prosecution from central or state authorities can lead to acquittals.
- The Maharashtra Bill allows district magistrates or police commissioners to grant permission for prosecution, aiming to expedite the legal process and reduce delays.

Definition of “Unlawful Activity” in the Maharashtra Bill

Scope: The bill broadly categorises acts that threaten public order, peace, or the administration of law as unlawful activities. Specific examples include:

Acts posing a danger to public order, peace, or tranquillity.
Interference with public order maintenance.
Interference with the administration of law or its institutions.
Acts intended to overawe public servants by criminal force.
Acts of violence, vandalism, use of firearms, explosives, or other disruptive activities.
Encouraging disobedience to established law and its institutions.
Fundraising for carrying out any of the above activities.

What are its Implications of the New Bill?

The proposed law in Maharashtra simplifies the process of designating groups as unlawful and prosecuting associated individuals, potentially increasing the government’s control over preventing and swiftly acting against activities deemed as threats.
However, the broader definition of “unlawful activity” compared to UAPA might raise concerns regarding the scope of powers granted and the potential for misuse.