In a move that has sparked outrage across legal, civil society, and political circles, the Maharashtra government formally tabled the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 in the Assembly on July 9. The proposed legislation, described by rights organisations, including Citizens for Justice and Peace, as an unconstitutional blueprint for state repression, codifies sweeping powers to declare organisations unlawful, criminalise association, evict communities, seize property, and deny judicial remedy, all of which are under the pretext of maintaining public safety.
Despite repeated objections from Opposition MLAs and an avalanche of detailed public submissions, the bill has been introduced with only minor linguistic tweaks. The government’s refusal to alter any of the substantive and dangerous provisions has confirmed what many feared: that the Joint Committee process was never meant to revise the bill, rather it was meant to legitimise it.
At the heart of this legislation lies a simple premise: dissent equals danger. Vague terms like “left wing extremist organisation” and “urban Naxal” remain central to the Bill’s design, but are never defined, giving the state unchecked discretion to label student groups, protest movements, civil rights organisations, even opposition-linked collectives, as threats.
The dissent note, backed by detailed legal analysis, concludes that cosmetic changes have been used to mask the retention of core authoritarian powers, including preventive detention, financial surveillance, asset forfeiture, and police immunity.
Key concerns raised by opposition members, civil society, and constitutional experts have been ignored or side-stepped. The Joint Committee has made only three formal amendments to the earlier format of the MSPS bill, which are:
- Rewording the objective clause to target “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations”;
- Recasting the composition of the Advisory Board;
- Raising the investigating officer’s rank from Sub-Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The final bill still:
- Grants the executive the power to brand organisations as “unlawful” without fair process;
- Criminalises routine dissent under vague definitions of “unlawful activity”;
- Enables property seizure, eviction, and financial ruin through non-judicial mechanisms;
- Excludes lower courts from jurisdiction, effectively cutting off accessible judicial remedies;
- Provides blanket immunity to state officials acting “in good faith”;
- Lays the ground for an ideologically driven crackdown on opposition groups, activists, and movements.
Summary of the amended Bill is as follows:
I. Purpose and Framing: Criminalising dissent as extremism
The revised objective of the bill now targets: “unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations.”
This change merely replaces generality with ideological bias, introducing undefined political terms into law. Phrases such as “Left Wing Extremist” or “similar organisations” remain legally ambiguous and dangerously elastic, allowing the government to label any group, farmer unions, student collectives, civil rights groups, as threats to public order. The shift in language is cosmetic and meant to sanitise the Bill’s sweeping repression of dissent. Extremism is of all colours and ideologies including right wing extremism, and therefore this ideological colouring in the Aims and Objectives of the Bill prejudices the intent of tabling of the proposed law itself.
II. Definitions: Vague, overbroad, and open to abuse
Section 2(f): “Unlawful Activity”
The bill defines unlawful activity in terms so vague that it criminalises:
- Speech (“spoken or written”)
- Symbols, gestures, or visual representations
- Activities that merely “tend to interfere” with public order or “generate apprehension”
- Fundraising for such activities
The language allows authorities to criminalise expression, assembly, criticism, satire, and mobilisation, simply by suggesting they pose a potential threat. There is no requirement of actual violence, imminent harm, or intent. The entire section runs counter to the proportionality principles under Articles 19 and 21.
III. Process of Declaring Organisations Unlawful: No real safeguards
Under Sections 3 to 7, the bill empowers the government to:
- Declare an organisation “unlawful” by executive notification;
- Enforce this declaration, in circumstances which according to the State government render it necessary for the Government to declare an organization to be an unlawful organization with immediate effect, before confirmation by the Advisory Board;
- Suppress any facts “in the public interest”;
- Extend the ban year-on-year with no limit on duration.
The Advisory Board that reviews such declarations shall be composed of:
- One retired High Court judge (Chairperson),
- One retired District Judge,
- One Government Pleader.
Notably, the term of the members and Chairperson has not be provided yet. This leaves the possibility open of persons compliant with the government being brought in through the Rules of the proposed law.
This seriously compromises the neutrality and independence of the Board. There is no mechanism for cross-examination, no standards of evidence prescribed, no obligation to publish reasons, and no provision for affected individuals to challenge gag orders or surveillance.
IV. Criminalising association, belief, and participation
Section 8: Section 8 criminalises a wide range of activities related to any organisation declared “unlawful” under the Act. The following acts are punishable with up to 3 years, 5 years, or 7 years of imprisonment, depending on the nature of the alleged involvement:
- Being a member of an unlawful organisation;
- Participating in meetings or activities of such organisations;
- Contributing funds or receiving donations on their behalf;
- Publishing or circulating material related to them;
- Promoting their objectives in any manner;
- Aiding, abetting, encouraging, or inciting support;
- Possessing property of such organisations.
Penalties escalate based on how “active” the participation is deemed by the state. Even passive association can lead to harsh criminal charges. These clauses mimic UAPA but are applied at a lower legal threshold, enabling pre-emptive criminalisation of ideology and association rather than acts of violence.
V. Powers to Evict, Seize Property, and Forfeit Assets: Extraordinary and disproportionate
Sections 9 and 10:
District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police are empowered to:
- Notify any place as connected to an “unlawful organisation”;
- Evict all occupants from that place; women and children will be given an unspecified “reasonable time” before such eviction
- Seize and forfeit all movable property, money, documents, or personal effects found therein;
- Retain possession of such places for as long as the ban is in effect.
These sections amount to executive-led expropriation with no prior judicial review, offering only token post-facto procedural safeguards.
The provisions are directly lifted from counter-terror laws like UAPA but applied without the threshold of national security or terrorist activity. They can be used against activists, non-profits, and political collectives, without any proof of criminal wrongdoing. As stated above similar provisions that can be used against individuals in a multiplicity of laws, makes both individuals and organisations, protesting or critical of the government in power, vulnerable to harassment through repeated prosecutions and denial of bail.
VI. Financial Forfeiture and Surveillance: Unchecked fiscal repression
Section 11: Forfeiture of funds
- Allows the government to seize any funds it believes with “satisfaction” are used by an unlawful organisation;
- Bypasses judicial warrant in many cases;
- Enables search, seizure, and financial surveillance powers equivalent to tax and terror enforcement regimes.
There is a nominal right to representation, within 15 days, but the final decision lies with the executive, not an independent judicial authority. This absence of judicial oversight and scrutiny further makes the proposed law vulnerable to autocratic misuse by the government of the day.
VII. Curtailment of legal remedies and judicial oversight
Section 12: Allows a revision petition only before the High Court; excluding access to Sessions or District Courts. This violates citizens’ access to justice, especially for the poor and marginalised.
Section 14: Bars any court (except High Court or Supreme Court) from reviewing actions taken under the Act.
These provisions violate the basic structure of judicial review, and the four tier levels of justice adjudication. This also therefore contravenes Articles 14 and 21 by denying due process, effective remedy and fair procedure.
VIII. Investigation and Cognizance: Centralised and politicised
Section 15:
- All offences are cognisable and non-bailable.
- Registration of cases requires written permission from a DIG-level officer, who shall also specify the Investigating Officer who shall investigate the case
- Cognizance by court requires report by an officer not below Additional DGP.
This model makes political clearance mandatory for both arrest and trial, consolidating both administrative and judicial functions in the hands of the police-political bureaucracy. This further concentrates power in the Executive wing of government and militates against the Balance of Powers in the Constitution, further making the proposed law vulnerable to autocratic misuse by the government of the day.
IX. Blanket immunity to state officials
Section 17:
Provides total civil and criminal immunity to the government and any officer acting “in good faith” under the Act.
There is no independent grievance redressal, no liability for false declarations or malicious prosecution, and no institutional oversight. This encourages impunity of those officials who misuse this law against legitimate protest, criticism and dissent.
Conclusion: A constitutional threat in legislative form
The Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 as tabled on July 9, 2025, is not a public safety measure—it is a legalised blueprint for political repression. It merges the worst features of the UAPA, NSA, and AFSPA without the national security context and applies them to civil resistance, democratic expression, and oppositional mobilisation.
Crucial Issue raised this Dissent Note is, is there a need for one more law when UAPA 1967 (amended in 2008, 2019), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and MCOCA, 1999 already give exist in the state and give powers, seen to be unchecked and draconian, to the state and police?
The proposed law, the MSPS Bill 2024, must also be seen in the context of the existence of multiple pre-existing legislation, UAPA 1967 and BNS 2023 that are central laws that have been enacted to “counter terror” and “organised crimes.” These, with MCOCA, 1999, a state law, already provide extensive legal frameworks to address activities deemed as ‘terrorist or secessionist’. These laws grant the state and its police apparatus extraordinary and significant powers to act against individuals engaging in acts that threaten national security, integrity, or sovereignty.
The incorporation of such stringent provisions into Maharashtra’s criminal laws, especially without the necessary safeguards, raises serious concerns about the potential for misuse. Given the current climate of intolerance of any political or creative opposition to government policies, individuals in power etc. and the abuse of power by investigative agencies, this Bill only deepens the risk of arbitrary state action and further threatens fundamental rights.
The MSPS Bill is, in conclusion:
- Unnecessary: Maharashtra already has MCOCA, UAPA, and now BNS provisions to tackle actual terror.
- Unconstitutional: Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
- Anti-democratic: Targets thought, association, mobilisation, and protest.
- Opaque and unaccountable: Hands sweeping powers to the police and executive without checks.
Failure of the Joint Committee to acknowledge opposition and critical voices
The Joint Committee’s report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 (Assembly Bill No. 33) stands exposed as a political whitewash of the serious objections raised during its deliberations. Despite five sittings, the committee’s report fails to acknowledge or incorporate the critical concerns voiced by opposition members, particularly those representing the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA).
These members had raised specific and substantive objections relating to:
- The vague and overbroad definitions of unlawful activity;
- The unchecked powers of seizure and arrest;
- The complete bypassing of district courts;
- The lack of independent oversight in the Advisory Board’s composition;
- The broad surveillance and financial seizure powers with no due process.
Despite these being discussed during the committee proceedings, none of them have been reflected in the final version of the Bill as tabled in the Assembly on July 9, 2025. Instead, the government has proceeded with token amendments that do not alter the law’s repressive framework.
Even more concerning is the opaque and exclusionary manner in which the Committee functioned:
- It refused to conduct public hearings, despite having invited written objections from citizens and organisations across Maharashtra;
- It did not grant a single personal hearing to any of the hundreds of individuals and organisations that submitted critiques;
- It did not make public the list of objections received, nor did it transparently document dissenting opinions within the committee.
This process makes it abundantly clear that the Committee was not a site of democratic deliberation, but a procedural formality deployed to blunt public criticism and legitimise an already pre-determined legislative outcome.
The final bill now tabled reflects this closed process: a text riddled with constitutional infirmities, ideological targeting, and structural bias, passed off as a measure for “public safety” while functioning as an instrument of political suppression.
Detailed report on the Joint Committee report may be read here.
The bill may be read below.
The dissent not in Marathi may be read below:
Related:
Maharashtra Unites: State-wide protests to take place against controversial MSPS Bill on April 22
Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?
Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties