by In July 2025, the Maharashtra legislature passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, designed to tackle left-wing extremism—especially the emergence of “urban Naxals.” The state government claims it fills legal gaps left by existing laws like UAPA. Critics, however, warn that the bill’s vague definitions and sweeping powers may jeopardize civil liberties and free expression.
Background
Introduced in July 2024 and re-proposed in December, the bill underwent scrutiny by a joint select committee. After incorporating over 12,500 public suggestions, it was passed in the Assembly and Legislative Council via voice vote. Only a lone CPI(M) legislator formally opposed it in the Council.
Key Provisions
- Power to designate organisations as “unlawful” if involved in extremist or destabilising activities.
- Penalties:
- Up to 7 years in prison and fine of up to ₹5 lakh for planning or abetting unlawful activity.
- Up to 2 years in jail and ₹2 lakh fine for harbouring or funding such groups.
- Offences are cognizable and non‑bailable: police can arrest without warrant and courts may deny bail .
- The Advisory Board, constituted of a High Court judge (or a qualified person), a district magistrate, and a public prosecutor, reviews every ban decision. Affected parties can challenge it in the High Court within 30 days.
- Authorities can seize property and funds of banned organisations; allow eviction from premises, and confiscation of movable assets.
- Judicial review is limited: only the High Court and the Supreme Court can hear petitions—district courts are excluded.
- Officials, including police and district magistrates, receive legal immunity under Sections 14 and 15, preventing prosecution even in cases of misuse.
Support and Criticism
State’s Stand
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis defended the bill as essential to counter urban extremism, stating it includes safeguards and is more balanced than similar laws in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, and Jharkhand.
Opposition & Civil Society
- Civil liberties group CJP flagged vague definitions, sweeping executive powers, and undermined rights to speech and fair process. It likened the bill to UAPA/NSA with arbitrary seizure and no recourse at local courts.
- Journalists’ bodies protested the bill’s potential misuse against media professionals, citing threats to press freedom and surveillance over dissenting voices.
- Political critics, including Uddhav Thackeray and Congress leaders, compared it to the colonial Rowlatt Act, warning of authoritarian misuse and political targeting of activists or opposition figures.
- At JNU, student protests marked widespread dissent against CM Fadnavis’s policies and the bill, portraying it as silencing marginalized groups and dissenters.
Implications at a Glance
| Dimension | Concerns / Relevance |
|---|---|
| Civil Liberties | Ambiguous definitions may criminalise protest, dissent, journalistic work |
| State Power | Advisory Board bias, immunity provision, limited judicial review |
| Legal Precedent | Mirrors security laws in multiple states, with fewer checks |
| Political Context | Passed by majority; dissent voices are marginalized |
| Democratic Norms | Potential threat to freedom of speech, assembly, equality under law |
Way Forward
- Clarify definitions: Tighten clauses like “urban Naxalism” and “unlawful activity” to avoid arbitrary interpretation.
- Ensure independent oversight: Advisory Board should include neutral judicial members and civil society.
- Restore access to local courts: Allow petitions in district courts to enhance justice accessibility.
- Remove blanket immunity: Mandate accountability mechanisms for misuse by administrators.
- Hold periodic reviews: Sunset clauses, impact assessments, and parliamentary oversight to monitor application.
Conclusion
The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, underscores the tension between security imperatives and democratic freedoms. While addressing urban extremist threats is legitimate, the sweeping powers granted raise serious concerns over potential misuse. As Maharashtra enacts the law, its true test will lie in transparent, accountable, and rights-respecting implementation.
