Left parties and various mass organisations have submitted their objections to the proposed Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024 which was tabled in Maharashtra Assembly in December last year and was referred to a Joint Select Committee. CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML) Liberation, Peasants and Workers Party, Lal Nishan Party along with more than two dozen other organisations have sent a letter to the Select Committee calling the provisions of this proposed Bill draconian, repressive and unconstitutional. This Bill is intended to be weaponised against political opposition and any form of dissent in the name of tackling “Urban Naxals”.

This Bill empowers the Government to declare an organisation as “unlawful”, the consequences of which are manyfold. This violates the fundamental tenets and principles of law – principle of maximum certainty, principle of strict construction, principle of broader purposive approach, presumption of innocence, principle of fair labelling, principle of proportionality, principle of prior fault, the principle of non-retroactivity, right of Self Incrimination and the specificity of offences. The Bill is marked by vague and broad definitions that are antithetical to criminal statutes.

The centrepiece of the proposed legislation is the definition of “unlawful activity”, which is extremely vague, broad and therefore problematic. It brings within its fold any action which “constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace or tranquillity”; or even “interferes or has a tendency to interfere with the maintenance of public order”; or “interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law, or its established institutions and personnel”; or “encouraging or preaching disobedience of established law and its institutions”. Thus by this broad definition, every act of dissent including peaceful protests and non-violent civil disobedience could be criminalised. The basic freedom of speech and expression and right to dissent would be rendered illusory.

Another deeply problematic aspect is that several terms used in this definition – danger, menace, encouraging, preaching, etc. are not defined in the Bill. This vagueness in definition goes against the basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence, that a criminal act should be well defined and cannot be left for interpretation since that gives way to abuse of the law.

Having provided vague and broad definitions, which can be used and abused to quell dissent, the Bill bestows unbridled powers on the Government and authorities in the declaration of an organisation as an “unlawful organisation” and the consequences that flow thereon. All it takes is for the Government to form such an opinion to altogether end the activities of that organisation. There is no burden of proof whatsoever that is required to be borne by the government in declaring any persons or group and their activities as unlawful. In effect, the Bill empowers the government to pursue any individual or organisation that it considers a threat, to declare all of its activities (including nonviolent activity, speech, or communications) illegal, to restrict its activities, and to punish some or all of its members.

Unbridled powers are given to the Deputy Magistrate/Commissioner of Police in regard to notifying “any place” which in their “opinion” was used for the activities of an organisation declared as an “unlawful organisation”. Any person who commits/abets/attempts to commit/plans to commit any unlawful activity of such unlawful organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term up to seven years and fine upto five lakhs rupees.

The penalties laid down in the Bill are grossly arbitrary.

What is of great concern is that these offences are defined without any element of mens rea i.e. intent. Even a draconian law like the UAPA has the element of mens rea included in the definition of offences, by qualifying acts with the phrase “knowingly and intentionally”. The Bill is hence, draconian, and grants excessive, arbitrary powers, as it empowers the state to jail anyone who criticises it or stands against its policies.

Reading this Bill, one is reminded of the Public Safety Bill ushered in by the British colonial rulers in 1918. The purpose of that legislation was to tackle the independence struggle and to suppress the genuine aspirations of the people. The 1918 Public Safety Bill was finally rejected by the Assembly, with Motilal Nehru strongly rejecting it on behalf of the Indian National Congress.

The present legislation has similar draconian intent to suppress dissent and cause alarm amongst the citizenry. This attempt to enact the bogey of urban naxals into law, runs contrary to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and reintroduces colonial tools of control and suppression at the cost of democratic norms and ethos and ought to be rejected in toto.