Unnecessary and alarming
The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPSB), introduced in the state assembly on July 11, has lapsed as the monsoon session was prorogued the following day. Nevertheless, it has stirred rigorous debate in the state and across the country. The intent of the Maharashtra government has come under serious scrutiny.
The Bill specifically aims to target ‘urban Naxals’—a term that the right-wing politicians and cadre in India have been obsessed with, but has no legal-constitutional basis. If passed in the future, the MSPSB will provide legal sanctity to a term whose scope is both vast and ambiguous. In practice, the term has already been used extensively to target students, professors, activists etc., who have been critical of government policies. While most of the Naxal threat remains confined in the limited stretches of the state, particularly in hamlets and forested areas, the BJP-led government in the state is apprehensive that the so-called ‘urban Naxals’ act as ‘frontal organisations’, spreading the ideology of armed rebellion and disrupting public order. The government alleges that these entities are a constant source of logistics and intellectual support for hardcore Naxals.
In the first place, the timing of the proposed legislation is intriguing. It was introduced on the second-last day of the monsoon session, that too in the Assembly, and not the Council—indicating that it could primarily be a political messaging ahead of the state assembly polls in October-November this year. Notably, security—from both internal and external sources—runs high on BJP’s agenda. However, the move cannot be mistaken as a mere political messaging. The BJP governments at the Centre and in several states appear to have developed a modus operandi for introducing and passing controversial legislations. They first introduce overreaching legislations with a maximalist stance and a bang; then, sensing the division in the mood of the public, they tone down the laws or push through it. The divided opinion in the public fora acts as a safe passage for the state administration to navigate through criticism.
The next question is: how threatening is the content of the Bill? Very much, indeed. But before that, it is unnecessary and unconstitutional as well. The state is already governed by strikingly similar legislations—leaving little urgency and relevance to the much-hyped Bill. Maharashtra is already governed by stringent laws including the central-level Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The need for MSPSB is strictly limited, though Devendra Fadnavis, who introduced the Bill, highlighted the absence of State Public Security Bill in the state vis-à-vis Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Odisha etc. What is needed instead is effective and judicious implementation of the existing laws.
The Delhi High Court had highlighted in the past that “the extent and reach of terrorist activity must travel beyond the effect of an ordinary crime and must not arise merely by causing disturbance of law and order or even public order”. On the contrary, the MSPSB allows for easy arrest and detention of ‘urban Naxals’ under offences categorised as cognisable and non-bailable for carrying out ‘unlawful activities’—with the scope of quoted terms being vastly ambiguous. The MSPSB also allows the State to label any suspected group as an 'unlawful organisation' and specifies four punishable offences: (i) being a member of such an organisation, (ii) being a member and raising funds or harbouring members, (iii) managing or assisting in the management or promotion of the organisation, and (iv) committing, abetting, attempting, or planning unlawful activities. These provisions have the potential to serve as a guise for targeting a certain set of active individuals who might not have anything to do with Naxalism.
The burden of so-called ‘draconian’ laws is already profound on the Indian populace. No part of the country can afford more of such legislations—introduced, particularly, citing frivolous needs. The MSPSB appears unnecessary and alarming.
