Is Maharashtra’s new security law a blueprint to criminalise dissent?

The Maharashtra Assembly has passed the Maharashtra Public Security Bill, 2024 during the monsoon session, projecting it as a key measure to combat “urban Naxalism” and left-wing extremism. The bill will now move to the Legislative Council. Despite vocal opposition from civil society groups, it sailed through the Assembly with near-unanimous support – the lone dissenting vote coming from CPI(M) MLA Vinod Nikole.

Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis assured the House that the legislation would not be misused against opposition parties, activists, or peaceful protesters. However, these assurances have done little to assuage critics, who warn that the bill's vague definitions and sweeping powers may be used to suppress dissent under the guise of maintaining public order.

A review of the legislation suggests the law significantly expands the state’s ability to designate individuals and organisations as “unlawful” – with far-reaching legal and civil consequences.

What the law allows

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2024 grants the state government power to ban any individual or group it deems “unlawful”. The definition is unusually broad, encompassing not only acts of violence or sabotage, but also speech, writing, signs, or gestures that “disturb public order”, “create fear”, or “encourage disobedience to the law”.

The government can issue a temporary ban on an organisation through a simple notice, pending a review by an advisory board comprising three current or former High Court judges. If the board upholds the decision, the ban is formalised.

Anyone found associated with such organisations – as a member, fundraiser, or supporter – can face up to seven years in prison and a fine of Rs 5 lakh. Authorities also have the power to seize property, including homes, vehicles, bank accounts, and even livestock, if believed to be linked to a banned group.

Offences under the Act are non-bailable and cognizable, though a case can only be registered with the written approval of a DIG-rank officer or higher. Courts can only act on such cases if a report is filed by an ADGP or above. Crucially, only the High Court or Supreme Court can review actions taken under this Act – regular courts have no jurisdiction.

The law also offers complete immunity to government officials for actions taken “in good faith”, even if later proven harmful or excessive.

Nihal Singh Rathore, a Nagpur-based human rights lawyer, described the law as “designed to suppress dissent”. “If any group dares to raise its voice on behalf of the people or challenges the government’s decisions, it can be labelled as left-wing extremist.”

Herambh Kulkarni, an educationist and social activist from Ahilyanagar, said the law blurs the line between dissent and extremism. “Just last week, a Shiv Sena leader claimed that Urban Naxals were participating in the Ashadi Wari pilgrimage. That shows how loosely this label is thrown around,” he said. “It’s also disappointing that the opposition parties failed to put up any resistance to the bill in the assembly. Except for the CPI(M), no other party opposed it, even those who often speak out on issues of civil liberties.” 

Lara Jesani, a Mumbai-based lawyer, highlighted the bill’s overwhelming civil society opposition. “Over 12,500 objections were submitted…even the opposition parties failed to raise objections in the assembly when it mattered most,” she said.

Jesani also flagged the law’s vague definitions, including what constitutes an ‘organisation’ – which can be any combination, group or body of persons, whether registered or not, with or without a name or constitution. “By that definition, even people attending a film screening could be treated as a group and potentially booked under this law.” 

“Despite several recommendations and objections, the Joint Select Committee made no real amendments or changes. When we already have multiple anti-terror laws dealing with unlawful organisations, what is the need  to introduce a new law under the banner of ‘public security’? On one hand, the government claims that Naxalism is on the verge of being wiped out, yet on the other, it introduces a sweeping new law supposedly to curb it. This contradiction raises serious questions about the real intent.”

If you liked this piece, let our reporters tell you why you should subscribe to Newslaundry.