Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2024: Another Tool in the Hands of the Government to Criminalise Dissent?

[An in-depth analysis of the Maharashtra Public Security Act, 2024 by Samarthan Advocacy Group was carried in a Marathi magazine “Lal Nishan” in May 2025. Following is the translation]

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, has been proposed by the Maharashtra government with the stated aim of curbing urban Naxalism. The draft of the Bill was first introduced in the monsoon session of the Legislative Assembly on July 11, 2024. However, it was not passed and became defunct after the session ended. It was reintroduced during the winter session in December and has since been sent to a Joint Committee for review. The Bill has been opened to the public for feedback.

Responses have been pouring in from all levels and sectors, and numerous objections have been raised regarding the Bill.

To help the general public understand the provisions of this Bill, we present section-wise observations and explanations. These observations are based on the draft text of the Bill and focus on its major provisions.

Government’s Objective Behind the Bill

The stated aim of the Bill is to curb “urban Naxalism” and the unlawful activities of Naxalite organizations. According to the government, existing laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 2019, and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, are either insufficient or ineffective. Therefore, a new law is deemed necessary.

The government argues that the new law is required to tackle the changing form of Naxalism, particularly its spread in urban areas. Hence, the Special Public Security Law proposed by the state is considered crucial for internal national security.

The Chief Minister has assured that this law is not intended to harass journalists or ordinary citizens, nor will it infringe on freedom of expression. According to the CM, the law targets organizations engaged in anti-national activities—not individuals.

To maintain transparency, the government has sent the Bill to a Joint Committee and committed to hold public hearings. The Chief Minister has also assured that further clarifications will be made in the provisions, if necessary.

The Reality of Urban Naxalism

Whether there is a concrete evidence of presence of urban Naxalism in Maharashtra is difficult to confirm definitively, as such information tends to be sensitive and often classified. However, based on available data and government claims, a few points can be noted.

In rural areas like Gadchiroli, the presence of Naxalism is well established. For example, in 2019, Gadchiroli police arrested two senior Naxal leaders—Narmada and Kiran. Narmada was known to have been active for 25–30 years and was considered a key leader in the Gadchiroli Naxalite movement. This incident clearly demonstrated rural Naxalism, but there is no equivalent public evidence available regarding urban Naxalism.

Mentions of urban Naxalism often appear in political and intelligence agency reports, but official documents or publicly available proof are lacking. Some experts and analysts believe that urban Naxalism may be an invisible network that supports rural Naxal movements ideologically or logistically. However, concrete evidence substantiating these claims is usually kept confidential or remains vague. In summary, the existence of urban Naxalism is claimed by the government and some security agencies, but publicly verifiable evidence to support these claims is not available.

Role of Journalists and Civil Society Organizations

Due to its broad and vague definitions, the potential for misuse of power, and its impact on fundamental rights (freedom of expression, association, and protest), the Bill has become highly controversial.

The Bill refers to concepts such as “urban Naxalism,” but these terms are not clearly defined. Because of this, journalists could be wrongfully targeted for writing critically against the government. This threatens constitutional rights such as freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, and the right to protest - rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

Because bail is likely to be denied under this law, civil society organizations and journalists fear that ordinary citizens, activists, journalists, and protestors could be unjustly targeted and criminalized.

The Bill also mentions strict action against activities that “disrupt public order.” This opens the possibility of suppressing movements related to social justice, environmental issues, or labor rights. For this reason, civil society groups consider this legislation to be anti-democratic.

Furthermore, the terms “terrorist activity” or “threat to public security” are not clearly defined. This lack of clarity allows the administration to act arbitrarily. According to civil society, this could lead to activists, journalists, and common citizens being wrongly treated as criminals.

Several organizations have alleged that the Bill could be used to target social activists, particularly those fighting for tribal rights, Dalit rights, and environmental justice. Such actions could weaken movements working toward social equity and justice. Many civil society organizations have also raised the concern that the Bill was drafted without proper public consultation or adequate discussion. On such a sensitive issue, they argue, it was essential to consider broad public opinion.

Because of these concerns, numerous civil society groups, activists, journalists, and members of the public have expressed strong opposition to the Bill. They argue that under the guise of national security, this Bill could undermine democratic values. This issue has sparked intense public debate both within the state and across the country, and many organizations are demanding that the Bill be withdrawn.

Observations Based on Key Sections of the Bill

Section 2 – Definition of “Unlawful Organization”

Sub-section (ch): Includes acts that pose a threat to public order, peace, or administration. This covers violence, vandalism, creating fear, disrespecting legal institutions, or campaigning against them.
- Interpretation: The definition is highly vague, which could result in peaceful protests or expressing anti-government opinions being labelled as unlawful.
Sub-section (chh): An “Unlawful Organization” includes any person or group directly or indirectly involved in, or promoting, unlawful acts.
- Interpretation: This gives the government broad authority to declare any group “unlawful,” with a high risk of misuse.

Section 3 – Declaring an Organization as Unlawful

Sub-section (1): Grants the government power to declare an organization unlawful.
- Interpretation: There is a strong possibility of misuse of power by the government.
Sub-section (3): If the government deems it necessary to immediately declare an organization unlawful, it may do so without needing the Advisory Board’s report. The notification becomes effective upon publication.
- Interpretation: This effectively means the final decision lies with the government, not the Advisory Board. Hence, the Advisory Board becomes a rubber stamp.
Sub-section (6): The state government may withdraw such a notification if the concerned organization or person files an appeal.
- Interpretation: The final authority to grant relief or exemption from action rests solely with the government.

Section 5 – Formation of Advisory Board

Sub-section (1): The state government may form an Advisory Board whenever it deems necessary.
- Interpretation: The independence of the Advisory Board is questionable and doubtful.
Sub-section (2): The Advisory Board will comprise 3 persons eligible to be High Court judges, all appointed by the state government.
- Interpretation: This raises questions about the board's autonomy, since appointments are made by the state. Impartiality cannot be assured.

Judge, Former Judge or Magistrate

Section (8): Crimes and Punishments

Sub-section (1): If a person is a member of an unlawful organization or participates in its meetings/actions, they may face imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine of up to 3 lakh rupees.
- Meaning: A person, whether a representative or member of the organization, can be arrested and punished; even if the person was not directly involved in the crime, action can be taken against them.
Sub-section (2): If a person who is not a member provides financial or other assistance to an unlawful organization, they may face imprisonment for up to 2 years and a fine of up to 2 lakh rupees.
- Meaning: This provision can also target ordinary citizens who unintentionally provide some form of help.
Sub-section (3): Those who manage or organize meetings of the unlawful organization may face imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine of up to 3 lakh rupees.
- Meaning: Journalists, activists, or social groups that disseminate information related to the organization may also be punished under this clause.
Sub-section (4): Planning or executing unlawful acts, encouraging such acts, or planning them can result in imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine of up to 5 lakh rupees.
- Meaning: This is the most severe punishment, but the vague definition of "unlawful acts" creates confusion.

Section 9: No Appeal in Court

Sub-section (1): District Magistrates or Police Commissioners have the authority to seize property used for unlawful activities and to evict residents from such premises.
- Meaning: This could affect the property of innocent individuals as well, and they will not have the right to prior notice or a hearing.

Section 10: Powers of District Magistrate and Police Commissioner

Sub-section (1): The District Magistrate or Police Commissioner will have the authority to seize property and cash.
- Meaning: This grants excessive powers to the District Magistrate or Police Commissioner, which could lead to arbitrary actions.
Sub-section (8): The District Magistrate or Police Commissioner will have the authority to dispose off property.
- Meaning: The power to dispose of assets and property is excessive; this raises a high possibility of irregularities and corruption.

Section 11: Power to Seize Funds of Unlawful Organizations

Sub-section (3): The District Magistrate or Police Commissioner may issue orders to seize money, bonds, and property.
- Meaning: This grants excessive authority to seize money, bonds, and property, increasing the likelihood of irregularities and corruption.
Sub-section (5): The government may send an officer selected by it to conduct a search at the office or residence of the organization, along with a copy of the order; such an order will itself serve as a warrant.
- Meaning: This gives police or administrative officers excessive authority to enter offices or homes and conduct searches.
Sub-section (6): Summons will be issued to corporations, companies, banks, or organizational secretaries, directors, or other key persons in the same manner as per the Indian Civil Code, 2023.
- Meaning: Corporations, companies, private banks, or people’s organizations may face serious harassment. This provision could also violate the Companies Act and Banking laws.
Sub-section (8): The government shall have the authority to recover penalty amounts at market value in the same manner as recovery of land revenue arrears.
- Meaning: The government will gain excessive powers to seize and recover movable property from individuals and organizations.
Sub-section 12: Under this law, legal challenges can only be filed in the High Court or Supreme Court. Not in lower (subordinate) courts.
- Meaning: This will make it difficult and expensive for ordinary citizens to seek justice, violating the constitutional principle of equality.
Sub-section 13: Entry into government offices or notified areas without the permission of a government officer is prohibited.
- Meaning: If a person enters a government office or notified area without permission while conducting a protest or rally, a criminal case may be filed. For example: Tehsil office, Mantralaya, etc.

Sections 14–15: The Offense is Cognizable and Non-Bailable

Authorized officers acting on behalf of the District Magistrate and Police Commissioner are granted protection and unchecked powers.
Officers acting under this law will be immune from any legal proceedings, and the offense will be cognizable and non-bailable.
Meaning: This grants officials unaccountable and excessive powers, increasing the potential for misuse and making it difficult to seek legal redress.

Section 17: Protection for Acts Done in Good Faith by Officers

No civil or criminal case may be filed against any government officer for any damage or harm caused to a person’s or organization’s property while carrying out actions under this law.
Such acts will be considered as having been done in “good faith.”
Meaning: Even if an officer knowingly damages the property of a person or organization, it will still be deemed an act of good faith and the officer will be immune from prosecution.

Section 18: Power to Make Rules

Every rule made under this Act shall, as soon as possible, be laid before both Houses of the Legislature during the session.
If both Houses agree before the end of the session to amend or reject any rule, then the decision shall be published in the Government Gazette accordingly.
Meaning: Members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council have the right to discuss, amend, improve, or repeal provisions of this law during the legislative session.

Summary

This bill grants sweeping powers to the government — such as declaring any organization unlawful, seizing property, and punishing individuals.
It allows for arrests without a warrant and designates such offenses as cognizable and non-bailable.
As a result, in the future, this law may adversely affect heads of institutions, organizations, companies, banks, corporations, journalists, and even ordinary citizens.

Can this law be misused?

There are several examples from Maharashtra that show how laws similar to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act have been misused. The following are specific incidents that provide a glimpse into how such laws can be abused:

Examples of misuse of such laws in Maharashtra

Bhima Koregaon Violence, 2018

After the violence at Bhima Koregaon in Pune in 2018, police arrested several social activists, lawyers, and writers like Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, and Gautam Navlakha, accusing them of having links with Maoists.
In this case, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and other security laws were invoked.
Human rights activists claimed that these laws were used to target those critical of the government.
Many of the accused were granted bail due to lack of evidence, leading to widespread criticism of the misuse of these laws.
Nature of misuse: Accusing individuals of Maoist or terrorist activity without solid proof.

Arrest and Death of Stan Swamy

Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Stan Swamy was arrested under UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case.
He was accused of having links with Maoist activities, but no concrete evidence was presented.
Despite his age and health conditions, he was denied bail, and he died in prison in 2021.
This incident raised serious questions about the misuse of UAPA and the trend of targeting activists.

Suppression of Peaceful Protests (CAA-NRC), 2019

In Maharashtra, there have been several complaints about the use of police laws to suppress peaceful protests and marches.
For example, during anti-CAA-NRC protests in 2019, some protestors in Mumbai and Pune were accused of rioting.
In some cases, police used lathicharge or detained protestors, raising questions about the right to freedom of expression.

Threats and False Cases Against RTI Activists

RTI (Right to Information) activists in Maharashtra have faced threats, attacks, and false legal cases.
For instance, in Pune and Mumbai, some activists who exposed corruption were falsely charged or intimidated.
Though RTI is meant to promote transparency, in some instances local authorities misused other laws (like defamation or criminal codes) to target whistle-blowers.

Examples of Misuse of Laws in Other States

Laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and certain state-level public security laws have often been used in controversial ways. The following examples illustrate how these laws have allegedly been misused:

Jammu & Kashmir – Misuse of AFSPA (Since 1990)

In Jammu and Kashmir, security forces have been granted extensive powers under AFSPA, leading to numerous allegations of human rights violations.
Example: Pathribal Incident (2010) – In Pathribal, Kupwara district, the Army killed five local residents labeling them as “terrorists.” Later investigations revealed they were innocent civilians, and the encounter was fake. This incident sparked massive outrage and highlighted the potential for misuse of AFSPA against ordinary citizens.

Chhattisgarh – Misuse of UAPA and Local Laws

In anti-Naxal operations, UAPA and state-level laws have allegedly been used against tribal people and activists.
Example: Soni Sori Case (2011) – A tribal teacher and activist Soni Sori was arrested under UAPA, accused of supporting Naxalites. She was reportedly subjected to severe custodial torture. Investigations revealed no concrete evidence against her, and the case was widely believed to have been filed under political pressure.
Additionally, several journalists in Chhattisgarh have been jailed under UAPA based on false allegations of Maoist links.

Jharkhand – Misuse of UAPA

Example: Father Stan Swamy Case (2020–2021) – A prominent 83-year-old tribal rights activist, Father Stan Swamy, was arrested under UAPA in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case.
He was accused of Maoist links, but no solid evidence was presented.
He was denied adequate medical care in prison and died in custody in 2021. The incident sparked sharp criticism of how UAPA was being used to target activists.

Manipur – AFSPA and Local Incidents

AFSPA has often been a source of major controversy in Manipur.
Example: Thangjam Manorama Case (1996) – Near Thangal Bazar, Imphal, the Army shot dead 10 civilians, branding them as “terrorists.” Later, it was revealed that all were ordinary citizens.
The incident raised serious concerns about the sweeping powers under AFSPA.
Additionally, activist Irom Sharmila fasted for 16 years (2000–2016) to protest against AFSPA, citing the law’s role in causing suffering to countless innocent people.

Tamil Nadu – Misuse of Goondas Act

In Tamil Nadu, the Goondas Act (Preventive Detention Law) has allegedly been used to target political activists.
Example: Thirumurugan Gandhi Case (2017) – Leader of the “May 17 Movement,” Thirumurugan Gandhi, along with colleagues, was arrested under the Goondas Act for holding peaceful protests in support of Sri Lankan Tamils.
This was criticized as a misuse of the law to suppress political dissent, since there was no clear criminal evidence against them.

Conclusion

These examples show that laws like UAPA, AFSPA, and other public security acts have sometimes been used against innocent individuals, activists, journalists, and tribals.
The broad and vague definitions within these laws increase the risk of misuse, leading to human rights violations and social injustice.
These cases underline the urgent need for transparency and accountability in the implementation of such laws.

Key Observations

Vague definitions and sweeping powers in laws like UAPA and MSPSA (Maharashtra Special Public Security Act) create scope for misuse by authorities.
There are repeated allegations of targeting social activists, journalists, and those who express dissent against the government through the misuse of these laws.
Abuse of judicial process: Long-term incarceration, denial of bail, and prolonged trials often lead to undue harassment of innocent individuals.

Major Recommendations

Ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of such laws.
Revise ambiguous provisions and implement strict guidelines to prevent misuse.
Take preventive measures in consultation with human rights organizations, opposition parties, and journalists to avoid misuse of security laws.