On September 3, 2025 the Maharashtra Cabinet approved a series of labour law amendments to increase the length of the working day, working hours without rest intervals, working hours per week, and limit of the overtime period. These amendments are based on recommendations of a central task force on labour reforms in order to “attract investment, expand industries, and create more employment opportunities.” The Maharashtra decision aligns with states such as Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Tripura – which have already enacted similar “reforms.”

The PUCL statement states that it must not be forgotten that the State is the biggest employer both in industries and establishments and is therefore required to ensure that workers are not exploited and their fundamental rights to a decent, safe and healthy work environment are protected. Yet it fails to do precisely that.

The State Government has made many lofty claims in support of these “reforms,” that are presumably in the interests of both labour as well as capital. The amendments will facilitate “protection of labour rights” while “improving the ease of doing business.” They will help “attract investment” as well as “increase employment opportunities in the state.”¹ But it is obvious that extending working hours, and removing smaller establishments from the purview of the law is meant to reduce or remove protections for workers, not to expand them, says the PUCL.

Today, even in the industrial sector in India, contractual workers are already working 12-hour shifts (without overtime). In effect, the amendments aim to legalise what is already happening in fact – depriving workers of the legal safeguards against super-exploitation. They seem to be a way of coercing a shrinking permanent workforce into this inhuman work regime. Besides, far from increasing employment, as is claimed, this step will reduce the organised work force to two thirds of its size by replacing 8-hour shifts with 12-hour ones. It is no surprise that the Karnataka State IT/ITeS

1 See the post by the Chief Minster of Maharashtra on the social media platform X:

मंत्रिमंडळ निर्णय : कामगार विभाग@Dev_Fadnavis#Maharashtra #मंत्रिमंडळनिर्णय #CabinetDecision #DevendraFadnavis pic.twitter.com/oTZrwmsHOp

— CMO Maharashtra (@CMOMaharashtra) September 3, 2025

Employees Union (KITU) labelled similar amendments proposed in Karnataka as “inhuman attempt to impose modern-day slavery” upon them.²

In line with the state cabinet’s decision, the proposed amendments will be carried out in the Factories Act of 1948 and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. In the Factories Act, the amendments proposed are: (a) Under Section 65, the workday shall be extended from the present 9 hours up to 12 hours; (b) Under Section 55, the rest period which was half an hour after the first five hours shall be made half an hour after six hours; (c) Under Section 56, the maximum number of working hours (spread over) in a day from 10.5 hours to 12 hours; (d) Under Section 65, the maximum number of hours of overtime in a quarter shall be increased from the present 115 to 144 hours (the original limit had been laid down as 75 hours). Under the Shops and Establishments Act the government intends to (a) increase working hours from 9 to 10 hours; (b) exclude establishments having less than 20 workers (the current number of 85 lakh establishments covered by this Act will be reduced to about 56,000).

While the State Labour Secretary has claimed that overtime work will be paid at double the rate of basic wages and allowances for every such increase in working hours, and that such overtime shall be subject to worker’s consent, these assurances have to be tested upon the actual language of the proposed amendments, particularly the fine print. While the decisions have yet to take the shape of a bill/ordinance for amending the Factories Act in the state, it is very likely that the amending bill/ordinance shall be on the lines of similar amendments made in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

In the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2025, issued on July 1, 2025, for instance, at Section 6, it is stated that Section 59(1) of the Factories Act shall be substituted by:

“Where a worker works in any factory:-

• for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, working for six days in any week;
• for more than ten hours in any day or for more than forty eight hours in any week, working for five days in any week;
• for more than eleven and a half hours in any day working for four days in any week, or works on paid holidays; he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.”

In effect this means that overtime will not be calculated on a daily basis, but on a weekly basis, and a worker may work for eleven and a half hours each day for four days in a week without being eligible for overtime. This amounts to squeezing out the maximum from workers, and if they do not consent to overtime, subjecting them to artificial breaks in service jeopardising their permanent status.

The Rajasthan Bill contains another dangerous clause, namely 6(v):

“A worker may be required to work for overtime subject to the consent of such worker for such work except worker required to work for safety activities.”

 2 See the statement “12-hour work day in Karnataka’s IT Sector; Modern-Day Slavery in the Making: KITU Urges Employees to Unite and Resist” by the Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union
https://kituhq.org/recent/6836e0f7e83575020247d3d1

Thus, a maintenance worker may be forced to work overtime all the year round. Given the current situation in the country of a large informal sector, underemployment, low wages, and unpaid work – workers will give “consent” out of fear or desperation, not choice. The provision of “consent” will be little more than legal subterfuge to conceal a new form of servitude.

It is a serious concern that while average working hours in wealthy countries have reduced by roughly half over the last 150 years – moving from over 50 hours per week to around 25-35 hours per week in recent times – India is reverting to colonial era standards by increasing working hours. In France, for instance, the standard full-time work week is 35 hours, with a daily cap of 10 hours; hours beyond the 35 hour threshold are considered overtime.

Finally, the PUCL statement states that the working class all over the world has fought a long battle to establish its right to an 8- hour working day so that workers may also have 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of personal time in which to achieve their full potential as citizens and as human beings. It must be recalled that the International Workers Day originates from the demand for an eight hour working day. Labour Day commemorates the sacrifice of union organisers – who were framed after the Haymarket protest on false charges of causing a riot – during a strike and demonstrations of Chicago workers in 1886. It has origins in the American Federation of Labour’s call: “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886”. After the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was founded in 1919, the first instrument ratified by it was the one regulating working hours. The second article limited working hours to 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. India was one of the first signatories of the ILO’s “Hours of Work Convention” in 1921. India has itself witnessed valiant struggles of textile workers in the year 1911 to reduce working hours which finally under the pen of Dr B.R. Ambedkar were enshrined in the Factories Act, 1948 in the form of the 8-hour work day. The government’s decision in effect seeks to extinguish in one stroke the rights that working people have won with great sacrifice and struggle over more than a century.

It is widely acknowledged that long hours of work does not increase worker productivity, on the contrary, they drastically increase incidents of workplace accidents. Such long hours of work can only lead to sweat labour and hazardous work conditions. It will adversely impact health of workers by increasing exhaustion and stress, and increase their exposure to occupation-linked diseases and medical conditions. It is equally well known that workers in establishments with 12- hour shifts are rarely able to unionise. Longer working hours are discriminatory towards women workers because women bear a significant burden of care work in their homes. If the government was serious about increasing productivity, employment opportunities and welfare of workers, they would introduce progressive amendments to reduce working hours without any reduction in wages.

The PUCL Maharashtra has therefore demanded that the full texts of the proposed amendments be made available in the public domain in both in Marathi and English, and in all offices of the Labour Department so that trade unions and organisations can scrutinise the fine print of these so- called “reforms.” We demand that this decision to amend the Factories Act and the Shop and Establishments Act along the lines of other state governments be immediately revoked. Any proposed labour reforms in the state must only be considered after a series of consultations with trade unions and workers’ organisations, after which they ought to be opened to the broader public for suggestions and objections.

The PUCL, has also stated that the organization, in alliance with trade unions and informal sector workers organisations will campaign against the extension of work hours. It will also lobby with the Standing Committee in the Legislative Assembly and with opposition party MLAs to not accept these changes, and if required challenge these amendments in the courts. The statement was issued by Shiraz Bulsara Prabhu, President of PUCL, Maharashtra and   Sandhya Gokhale, General Secretary.

Related:

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court? 

The post Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ever since the introduction and passage of the controversial law, a unique alliance of people’s organisations and opposition political parties have come together, on four separate occasions to protest this law that spells doom for free expression, the right to protest and dissent. In April 2025 and then again in July 2025, there have been protests around this legislation.

Pune: Call to resist “state repression”

In Pune, under the leadership of Supriya Sule (MP), National Working President of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), a mass gathering was organized at the Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial near Pune Station. City NCP president Prashant Jagtap called on citizens to resist the law, warning that it empowers the state to directly imprison dissenters and silence public opposition.

1 of 7

Mumbai: Opposition Action Committee leads joint protest

In Mumbai, the Janasuraksha Bill Opposition Action Committee led a protest at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Maidan, Dadar, from 4–8 pm. The meeting was chaired by Com. Prakash Reddy (CPI) and attended by leaders across the political spectrum:

• Congress – Dhananjay Shinde
• NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) – Rupesh Khandke
• CPI(M) – Com. Shailendra Kamble
• CPI – Com. S.K. Rege, Amir Kazi, Com. Nana Parab
• Peasants and Workers Party – Com. Rajendra Korde
• Hum Bharat Ke Log – Feroze Mithiborwala
• CPI(ML) – Com. Vijay Kulkarni
• APCR – Shakir Shaikh, Adv. Inamdar
• Autonomous women’s organisations and civil liberty activists from Forum against Oppression of Women among others.

A message of solidarity was also sent by MLA Sachin Ahir (Shiv Sena–UBT). Multiple people’s organisations pledged participation.

1 of 7

Loh and Rural Maharashtra: Constitution and democracy defended

In Loh, a demonstration began with floral tributes at the statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, followed by slogans:

• “Long Live the Constitution”
• “Repeal the Anti-People Public Security Act”
• “Down with the Fadnavis-Shinde-Ajit Pawar Government”

Leaders including Com. Rameshwar Pawal (CPI-M), Milind Sawant (Congress), Rameshwar Bahirat (Shiv Sena–UBT), and Bhai U.R. Thombal (Shetkari Kamgar Paksha) condemned the Act as an assault on democratic rights. Protesters reminded that 10 lakh signatures and over 1.24 lakh written objections were submitted to the Governor, but the government still “bulldozed” the Bill through the Assembly.

1 of 4

Other District Actions

• Kolhapur: Maha Vikas Aghadi held a sit-in at the Collector’s office, led by Congress’s Harshvardhan Sapkal and district leaders; a memorandum was submitted.

महाराष्ट्र प्रदेश काँग्रेस कमिटीच्या आदेशानुसार व प्रदेशाध्यक्ष हर्षवर्धन सपकाळ साहेबांच्या नेतृत्वात महाराष्ट्र जनसुरक्षा विधेयका विरोधात राज्यव्यापी आंदोलन करण्यात आले.
कोल्हापूर जिल्हा काँग्रेस कमिटी व महाविकास आघाडीच्या वतीने जिल्हाधिकारी कार्यालय,कोल्हापूर येथे ठिय्या आंदोलन… pic.twitter.com/q2wPjfi8cL

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) September 10, 2025

• Solapur: Protesters burnt an effigy of the Act in a symbolic rejection.

1 of 4

• Manchar: A large gathering under MVA banner denounced the Act.

• Palghar district: Demonstrations were staged at Dahanu, Palghar, Vasai, Wada, Vikramgad, Jawhar, and Mokhada.

1 of 2

• Beed, Shevgaon (Ahmednagar), Hingoli, Dhule, Gadchiroli, Gondia: District-level agitations with party workers and civil society activists submitting memoranda.

1 of 22

Opposition’s Stand

Across locations, including Shahada, Nandurbar, Shambhajinagar and Satara, western Maharashtra, speakers reiterated that the MSPS Act violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, criminalises dissent, and grants unchecked powers to the state. They demanded its immediate repeal, warning that Maharashtra risks becoming a “police state.”

Slogan on everyone’s lips was: Not Public Security, but Public Oppression Bill!”

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22

The post Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For instance, the matter of 39-year-old Sushama Gupta having six entries in the electoral rolls was posted on X by Alt News journalist Abhishek Kumar. A cross-verification exercise was conducted by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and has been made public by Venkatesh Nayak, its director. Sushama Gupta, a 39-year-old resident of the Nalasopara assembly constituency in Maharashtra’s Palghar district, appeared to figure six times in the electoral roll, with each entry carrying a different EPIC number as pointed out on X on Tuesday (August 12).

Thereafter, Pratik Sinha founder of Alt News, put out this tweet that educated thousands on how to convert ECI’s unreadable electoral rolls to a readable software.

Soon, the Common Wealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) undertook its own cross verification exercise between 5 to 6:30 pm on August 12, 2025 using the publicly accessible voter list database and the Search in Electoral Roll facility created by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

How did they go about probing?

The aforementioned media report states that the name of one individual Ms. Sushma Gupta figures five times on the electoral rolls of Nilemore locality and once again in the voter list of Tulinj locality of the same Vidhan Sabha constituency. So the CHRI decided to cross check this claim on two fronts:

1) Using the image of the voter list displayed in the media story, CHRI activists keyed in the EPIC numbers mentioned against Ms. Sushma Gupta to see if the ECI’s Voter List Portal throws up any data; and

2) They then downloaded the entire voter list of the Nilemore locality from the same portal to check whether the claim about multiple mentions is true. This voter list downloaded from the ECI’s Portal states that it was last updated on 29/10/2024. Perhaps this list was prepared after the summary revision of the electoral rolls ahead of the Vidhan Sabha elections in Maharashtra on 20th November, 2024.

Caveat: The image displayed in the media report mentioned above contains photographs of voters also. So probably this image might be of the voter lists provided to the polling agent(s) for use on the day of polling. The CHRI was unable to ascertain whether this list with photographs was used during the Lok Sabha polls or the later Vidhan Sabha polls held in Maharashtra in 2024 because the voter list the activists have downloaded from the ECI’s portal does not contain any photographs as per ECI’s policy to protect the privacy of voters.

Findings:

1) The name of Ms. Sushama Gupta (not Sushma Gupta as mentioned in the above media story) occurs multiple times in the attached voter list of 286- Nilemore Polling Station which is located at St. Mary’s High School, Ground Floor, North side, Room No. 9, Nilemore (the complete voter list has also been provided by the organisation;

2) The name of Ms. Sushama Gupta occurs five times (5) on page no. 26 and once on page 44 of the voter list. Out of the five occurrences on page no. 26 only one of them carries the “DELETED” watermark across the entry as of today. This is the entry connected with the 390-Tulinj locality displayed in the image published in the aforementioned media story. All six entries carry different EPIC numbers and all five entries for Nilemore locality are shown as live;

3) In five of these six entries, Ms. Sushama Gupta is shown as a female aged 39 years, whose husband is one Sanjay Gupta, with House No. displayed as Mata Jivdani Chowl;

4) In one of the five live entries, the individual’s name is shown only as “gupta Gupta” (EPIC: WEH8746877) but with the same age, husband’s name and House No. This is intriguing as to how the surname and the first name were allowed to be identical;

5) The image of the voter list with photographs displayed in the aforementioned media report does not match with the voter list downloaded from ECI’s portal in one respect. The serial nos. do not match. In the image displayed in the media report, the serial nos. shown for this individual are: 1316, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 and 1323. In the voter list which we downloaded from the ECI’s portal, the serial nos. against which this individual is named are: 712, 715, 716, 717 (DELETED entry), 718 and 1235. This is another intriguing discrepancy. One plausible explanation could be that the image displayed in the aforementioned media report might have been from the voter list used during the Lok Sabha elections held earlier in April-May 2024;

6) When CHRI activists searched the ECI’s database using the “Search in Electoral Roll” facility applying all six EPIC numbers, they found the same name popping up six times today, with the same personal details as mentioned above (the screenshots of the search results are in the 2nd attachment below). The entry shown as DELETED on the Voter list did not contain a similar remark on this database;

7) Last but not the least, when they clicked the “View Details” link given against each entry we found that the same District Election Officer (Mr. Govind Bobde), the same Electoral Registration Officer (Mr. Shekhar Ghadge) and the same Booth Level Officer (Ms. Pallavi Sawant) are named against all these entries (in the 2nd attachment the search result page for each entry is followed by a screenshot of the Voter Details Page). The mobile phone nos. of the ERO and the BLO are also given. It is intriguing that none of these officers discovered the multiple entries at the time of finalising the voter list for two rounds of elections, namely the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabha elections.

This is but one claim of discrepancy being reported by the media which the CHRI has been able to cross check given the very limited human resources available at our disposal. It is hoped that other electoral reforms advocates will cross check other claims about voter list discrepancies and publish their results.

Clearly, the ERO, DEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra and the ECI have much to account for to the citizenry.

Related:

Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

The post Palghar, Maharashtra: One woman voter in six locations, DEO, ERP and BLO common!! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

• In Thane, Parbhani, and Kolhapur, opposition parties, including the Maharashtra Congress, and civil rights groups are rallying against the newly passed Maharashtra Public Safety Act (MSPS)—a sweeping law that criminalises democratic dissent.

जनसुरक्षा कायद्याला कडाडून विरोध करण्यासाठी कोल्हापूर जिल्हाध्यक्ष श्री.सतेजजी पाटील यांच्या उपस्थितीत आज कोल्हापूर जिल्हा व शहर काँग्रेसच्या वतीने काँग्रेसच्या कार्यालयाबाहेर जनसुरक्षा कायद्याची होळी करून संविधानिक मार्गाने काम करणाऱ्या विरोधी पक्ष संघटना, शिव- शाहू- फुले-… pic.twitter.com/Z8hz5JEODR

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) July 21, 2025

परभणी जिल्हा व शहर काँग्रेसच्यावतीने परभणीतील डॉ. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर यांच्या पुतळ्याजवळ जनसुरक्षा कायद्याला कडाडून विरोध करण्यासाठी संविधानिक मार्गाने काम करणाऱ्या विरोधी पक्ष संघटना, शिव- शाहू- फुले- आंबेडकरवादी संघटना, पुरोगामी, शेतकरी कामगार संघटना यांना संपवणाऱ्या आणि… pic.twitter.com/AG6GSGSzjT

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) July 21, 2025

• In Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Nanded, members of the Qureshi Muslim community have initiated a state-wide boycott of the cattle trade in protest against a decade of mob lynching, police harassment, and what they call a campaign of “economic strangulation.”
• And on the shores of Sassoon Dock in Mumbai, the Koli fishing community is resisting sudden evictions despite years of assurances, demanding protection of their ancestral rights and the right to the sea.

Together, these protests tell a larger story: of how state power, legal instruments, and vigilante violence are reshaping the rights, identities, and futures of working-class and marginalised communities across Maharashtra.

• The Public Safety Act: A law to silence the people

When the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 was passed by the Maharashtra legislature in June 2025, the government claimed it was a necessary measure to combat “urban Naxalism” and protect public order. But opposition parties, constitutional scholars, and over 12,500 citizens who submitted objections to the Joint Select Committee saw the law for what it is: a legal instrument to suppress protest, stifle opposition, and criminalise constitutional expression.

The law allows the state to declare any activity or organisation “unlawful” if it is seen to disturb “public order” or interfere with “established institutions.” But these terms are undefined, vague, and dangerously expansive. Jan Suraksha Vidheyak Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti approached the Governor of Maharashtra on July 16, 2025 and submitted a memorandum against the said Bill.

The memorandum stated that “The Sangharsh Samiti has strongly opposed the Jan Suraksha Bill (Bill No. XXXIII of 2024), as the Bill is a direct assault on the democratic and fundamental rights of the citizens of the State.  We believe that in the name of curbing Naxalism, due to its vague formulation, the Act is likely to be misused against common citizens, social activists and organisations who legitimately raise their voice against unjust government policies and actions.  The stifling of any form of opposition and dissent, is antithetical to the democratic frame of our Constitution. A more detailed note outlining our major objections to the Bill, is attached herewith.”

The additional memorandum submitted to the Governor on July 22, 2025 highlighting that Section 2(f), which defines unlawful activity argued that the state definition is so wide it could criminalise rasta rokos, satyagrahas, pamphleteering, or even social media posts.

The additional memorandum to the Governor provided that “The definition of “unlawful activity” is too broad and all-encompassing.  While the Chief Minister has repeatedly stated that morchas, andolans, and other democratic forms of protest will not be disallowed, the fact is that the definition of “unlawful activity” as defined in Sec 2 (f) of the Act is so broad that morchas, andolans etc. fall squarely within the said definition. It is necessary that the assurances in this regard as given on the floor of the House, must be translated into black and white on paper.”

Under Section 5, the Advisory Board, originally meant to serve as a constitutional check, has also been structurally weakened. Under amendments introduced by the Joint Select Committee, the Board may now include retired district judges and government advocates, compromising its independence.

Opposition erupted state-wide:

• In Parbhani, Congress leaders gathered at the Ambedkar statue to burn copies of the Bill and denounce it as an attack on Ambedkarite and Phule-Shahu ideals.
• In Kolhapur, 2,000 people blocked a police contingent and set fire to symbolic effigies of the law, calling it “black inside and out.”
• In Thane, a major public meeting on July 27 brought together journalist Kumar Ketkar, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut, former minister Jitendra Awhad, and retired judge Abhay Thipse, all calling for the repeal of the Act.

As reported by The Week, Congress state president Harshvardhan Sapkal, in a widely covered press conference at Gandhi Bhavan, alleged that the law was designed not to curb extremism but to protect industrialists grabbing land in Dharavi, or extracting mineral wealth from Surjagad in Gadchiroli.

“This law is draconian inside and out and is meant to suppress the common people… The only beneficiaries will be the government and the industrialists who support it — the ones who have grabbed land in Dharavi, looted mineral resources in Surjagad (Gadchiroli), and want red-carpet access to the Shaktipeeth highway corridor.”

The Governor is yet to grant assent, and civil society groups continue to demand that the Bill be returned to the Assembly under Article 200 of the Constitution. More such protests are planned in Maharashtra. On July 27, 2025 there is a protest meeting in Thane that will be addressed among others by former judge, Abhay Thipsay.

• The Qureshi Community’s economic boycott against mob violence

On July 1, 2025, a quiet revolution began in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. Members of the Qureshi Muslim community, who are traditionally involved in buffalo meat and cattle trade, announced they were ceasing all commercial activity indefinitely.

The reason? A decade of mob lynchings, extortion, and police collusion under the pretext of gau Raksha (cow protection). Haji Aslam Sultan Qureshi, president of the Maharashtra Jamat ul Quresh, spoke with Hindustan Times and stated that “We are legal traders, but gau rakshaks beat us, loot our vehicles, and often kill with impunity. Even when we transport buffaloes, which are legal, they attack us. And the police help them.”

The community cites multiple fatal cases:

• Rafeeq Tamboli, beaten to death in 2021;
• Affan Ansari, killed in 2024;
• Seven deaths in Washim district alone, the report provided, as per local community leader Nabi Qureshi.

Over time, slaughterhouses in many districts have been shut down or denied veterinary certification, making legal slaughter impossible. As per a report of The Wire, in Nanded, there are no functioning taluka-level veterinary officers. As a result, butchers are forced to slaughter in homes, illegal under the law, making them further vulnerable to FIRs and raids. “We are being pushed into illegality by design,” said a butcher from Parbhani, according to The Wire report, “then arrested for surviving.”

On July 15, the HT report provided, a Qureshi delegation met Minister of State for Home Yogesh Kadam and DGP Rashmi Shukla, demanding a written assurance of protection. Kadam refused, offering only oral promises.

Meanwhile, according to the report of The Wire, the government’s official position hardened. On July 14, Minister Pankaj Bhoyar announced:

• A new law to combat beef smuggling;
• Withdrawal of all cases against gau rakshaks;
• Possible invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against cattle transporters.

The report of The Wire provides that activists like Juned Atar have documented how vigilante groups coordinate across districts, sending tip-offs when cattle transport begins and ambushing vehicles with police support. “The state is now weaponising bureaucracy against us,” said Kaizer Patel, AIMIM lawyer, who estimates that ₹300 crore worth of trade has been halted state-wide. “The real victims are the poor—Qureshis, farmers, drivers, meat vendors, and even the hotel industry.”

• Sassoon Dock Standoff and the Fight for Coastal Rights

The third protest front opened in Mumbai—on the land and waters of Sassoon Dock, a historic fishing port that sustains tens of thousands of Koli fisherfolk, warehouse operators, ice vendors, and boatmen.

On July 23, a team from the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) arrived with police support to evict godown operators on the basis of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling. The MbPA claims the godown operators are unauthorised sub-lessees and that the original leaseholder is the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation (MFDC).

But, as reported by Hindustan Times, the Koli community sees this eviction as a betrayal of past assurances. In a 2015 ministerial meeting at Vidhan Bhavan, Nitin Gadkari and Eknath Khadse had assured that:

• Ready Reckoner rent rates would not apply, and
• No eviction would be carried out without consultation.

“If MbPA claims otherwise, they should give us that in writing,” said Krishna Pawle, president of Shiv Bharatiya Port Sena, reported Hindustan Times. 

“Today they’re coming for the warehouses. Tomorrow, they’ll come for our boats,” warned Bhaskar Tandel, former chair of the Machimaar Sarvoday Society, while speaking with HT, “We have been here longer than the Port Authority itself.”

The eviction was stalled by a mass protest of over 2,000 people, and Koli leaders have warned that 20,000 will occupy Sassoon Dock if the eviction continues after the seasonal fishing ban ends on August 1.

For the Koli community, this is about more than tenancy. It is about ancestral claims, survival, and identity in a rapidly gentrifying Mumbai.

Conclusion: Criminalisation as policy, resistance as survival

In all three protests, a clear pattern emerges:

• Legal frameworks—whether the MSPS Act, cow protection laws, or tenancy regulations—are being used to delegitimise, displace, or detain.
• Marginalised communities—Muslims, Tribals, Bahujans, and traditional coastal dwellers—are increasingly forced into protest just to survive.
• And when they protest, they are labelled as Naxals, smugglers, or encroachers.

These protests are not merely political reactions. They are defences of constitutional existence, carried out in courtrooms, streets, markets, docks, and under statues of Ambedkar and Shivaji. In Maharashtra today, protest is not dissent. It is self-defence.

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

TN: Sugarcane Farmers Protest, Demand Better FRP, Reintroduction of SAP

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22

The post From villages to docks, Maharashtra rises against a weaponised law, eviction & vigilante violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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:

1. Rewording the objective clause to target “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations”;
2. Recasting the composition of the Advisory Board;
3. 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:

1. Being a member of an unlawful organisation;
2. Participating in meetings or activities of such organisations;
3. Contributing funds or receiving donations on their behalf;
4. Publishing or circulating material related to them;
5. Promoting their objectives in any manner;
6. Aiding, abetting, encouraging, or inciting support;
7. 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?

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Bogey of “urban naxals” invoked to legitimise clamping down of dissent?

The post Dissent Note: Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

By the end of April 2025, the total number of farmer suicides had risen to 869, according to divisional-level reports from the relief and rehabilitation department, report Scroll. Amravati division topped the list with 327 deaths, followed by Marathwada with 269, Nagpur with 135, Nashik with 106, and Pune division with 32.

Marathwada, historically one of India’s most drought-prone and underserved regions, is reeling under an escalating crisis. From just January to March 2025, 269 suicides were reported in its eight districts- Beed (71), Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (50), Nanded (37), Parbhani (33), Dharashiv (31), Latur (18), Hingoli (16), and Jalna (13). This marked a steep rise from 204 suicides during the same period in 2024 (TOI, April 2025).

These are not just numbers, they are lost lives, shattered families, and communities pushed beyond endurance. Yet, Maharashtra’s response has been chillingly procedural: of the 767 suicide cases reported between January and March, just 373 were deemed “eligible” for compensation. The families of only 327 farmers received the state’s standard ex gratia of ₹1 lakh. The remaining 200 cases were rejected. The fate of 194 others remains suspended in bureaucratic inquiry limbo, according to a report in the PTI.

A vicious spiral of loss

Each suicide is a family shattered. Families like that of 43-year-old Kailash Arjun Nagare in Buldhana, once honoured with the Maharashtra government’s Young Farmer Award, who died by suicide on Holi by consuming poison in his field, as reported by PTI in March 2025. His suicide note blamed the acute water crisis and government apathy. Nagare had recently led a five-day hunger strike demanding irrigation water for 14 villages from the Khadakpurna reservoir. His body was not allowed to be moved for hours as protesting farmers demanded accountability. “This is not a suicide; it is state-sanctioned murder,” said farmer leader Ravikant Tupkar, according to the Indian Express report.

Or take the case of Sonia Uikey, a 17-year-old from Wardha, who hanged herself on July 4, 2025 because her family couldn’t afford her Class 12 school fees. “We’ve moved from farmers killing themselves to their children ending their lives too,” said NCP (SP) MP Amar Kale after visiting her home, as reported by PTI.

The math of misery

At the heart of the crisis lies an economic model stacked against the farmer. As veteran farmer activist Vijay Jawandhiya explained to Rediff, the government celebrates low inflation, 3.5% as per the RBI, while ignoring the price farmers have paid for it. “Inflation fell because vegetable and crop prices collapsed, not because life became cheaper for farmers,” he said while speaking with Rediff. While input costs like fertiliser, health, and education remained high, prices for crops plummeted due to imports and policy neglect. Soya bean was sold at ₹4,000 per quintal against an MSP of ₹4,892. Cotton fetched ₹7,000 against an MSP of ₹7,500. Tur dal prices dropped disastrously from ₹12,000 to ₹6,000 per quintal.

“Farmers are losing money on every harvest,” said food policy expert Devinder Sharma, according to a report of The Hindu. “It’s not that agriculture is unproductive, it’s that we have made it unviable.” He cited the NSSO’s most recent Situation Assessment Survey, which found that average monthly income from farming stands at just ₹10,218. This boils down to a daily income of ₹27 from agriculture alone, barely enough to buy a meal, let alone repay debts, as reported by The Hindu.

Government Aid: A leaky pipe

Out of the 767 suicides recorded between January and March 2025, only 373 cases were deemed eligible for compensation; 200 were rejected, and 194 were still under inquiry, according to Indian Express. Of the eligible cases, just 327 families received the ₹1 lakh financial aid promised under government policy.

Worse, large sections of vulnerable farmers are excluded from this count altogether. “Women farmers, Dalits, Adivasis, and tenant cultivators are systematically excluded,” says journalist P. Sainath, as per The Hindu. “If a deceased farmer doesn’t have a 7/12 land deed, their death is simply not counted.” After 2014, changes in suicide data methodology, like classifying tenant farmers as agricultural labourers, further diluted the real scale of the crisis, according to People’s Archive of Rural India.

Seeds of Exploitation: The HTBT cotton crisis

Even Maharashtra’s cotton sector is now undermined by an unregulated seed market. Speaking to The Hindu, Jawandhia warned that nearly 1 crore of the 2 crore cotton seed packets in use this year are unauthorized F2 (second-generation) seeds. These genetically inferior, unofficial hybrids are being sold for ₹2,000/kg despite production costs of just ₹40/kg, creating a grey market that exploits desperate farmers. He urged the government to introduce pureline cotton varieties, allowing farmers to replant without buying from private firms every season.

Uneven burdens across regions

The reasons suicides are higher in Vidarbha and Marathwada, compared to Konkan or western Maharashtra, lie in systemic neglect. Vidarbha’s agriculture is largely rain-fed and high-risk. Landholdings have shrunk drastically, families now farm barely five acres each. In contrast, western Maharashtra enjoys access to horticulture, subsidies, and better irrigation. Konkan’s rural economy is cushioned by remittances from Mumbai (Rediff, July 2025).

The state government continues to announce schemes like the ₹1,500 per month Laadki Bahin Yojana for women and ₹6,000 PM-Kisan aid. But when compared to the ₹45,000 monthly salary a peon is expected to draw under the 8th Pay Commission, these figures seem paltry. “There are two Indias,” Jawandhia says. “A peon in the government earns ₹45,000 per month, while a farmer gets ₹1,500 under Laadki Bahin Yojana. What’s ₹1,500 for a woman managing an entire farm household?”

Forgotten families, drowning in debt

The effects ripple across generations. In Pali, Beed, Meena Dhere works in onion fields for ₹250 a day while her elderly mother-in-law watches over her children. Her husband Ashok died by suicide in January 2025 after accumulating a ₹3 lakh debt. In Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, 45-year-old Sadhana Kalaskar lives under a tin roof, trying to pay off a ₹6 lakh wedding loan after her husband’s suicide in November 2024, as reported by The Hindu.

“Government policies speak of relief, but the ground reality is abandonment,” said social worker Nitnaware. “After a suicide, the family is left with not just grief but also loans, unpaid school fees, and hungry mouths.”

A Political Hotbed, But No Long-Term Solutions

Farmer suicides became a central issue during the 2024–25 election cycle. PM Modi promised MSP of ₹6,000 per quintal for soya bean, while Congress’s Rahul Gandhi vowed ₹7,000. But beyond these headlines, little changed. On July 3, opposition parties staged a walkout in the Maharashtra assembly, accusing the state of ignoring the non-payment crisis for soybean farmers, as reported by PTI.

Rahul Gandhi’s reaction to the suicide figures summed up public frustration: “767 families shattered in three months. Is this just a statistic? Or a stain on our collective conscience?”

सोचिए.. सिर्फ 3 महीनों में महाराष्ट्र में 767 किसानों ने आत्महत्या कर ली।

क्या ये सिर्फ एक आंकड़ा है? नहीं। ये 767 उजड़े हुए घर हैं। 767 परिवार जो कभी नहीं संभल पाएंगे।

और सरकार? चुप है। बेरुख़ी से देख रही है।

किसान हर दिन कर्ज़ में और गहराई तक डूब रहा है – बीज महंगे हैं, खाद… pic.twitter.com/uDzFpYoMrG

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 3, 2025

A death every few hours

Farmer rights groups like Kisan Putra Andolan estimate that Maharashtra now loses 7–8 farmers every single day. These are not mere economic failures—they are policy murders, born of wilful neglect, rising input costs, collapsed MSPs, and mounting debt. In over two decades, Maharashtra has recorded 39,825 farmer suicides. Of these, 22,193 were confirmed to be due to agrarian distress. The government has paid ₹220 crore as compensation, an average of just ₹55,000 per suicide.

The numbers are terrifying, but they only tell part of the story. Behind each death is a voice that went unheard, a protest ignored, a loan unpaid, a dream deferred. Maharashtra’s farmer crisis is not seasonal, it is structural. Until that is acknowledged, the state will continue to bury its farmers and their futures, one suicide at a time.

Related:

As 30 crore workers, farmers join July 9 strike against govt.’s policies, will there be media coverage of the shut down?

TN: Sugarcane Farmers Protest, Demand Better FRP, Reintroduction of SAP

Farmers’ leader detained forcefully on Constitution Day as protests for delivering guarantee on legal MSP intensify

The post A Silent Emergency: Farmer suicides surge in Maharashtra amid apathy, debt, and systemic collapse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The mobilisation was, in large part, organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, with support from people’s organisations. Key MVA constituents—the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar faction) turned out in support. The turnout reflected a broad political front, including working-class organisations, students, farmers’ unions, and civil liberties groups.

State Secretary of the CPI (M), Dr. Ajit Nawale, had issued an open call for participation across Maharashtra, urging district units to treat this as a “decisive stand against authoritarianism.” Protesters arrived from across the state—by bus, train, and private vehicles—responding to the call to defend democratic rights.

Opposition and civil society leaders stand together

Several prominent leaders stood in solidarity at the protest. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray, Supriya Sule of the NCP (SP), CPI state secretary and labour organiser Subhash Lande and senior social activist Ulka Mahajan joined demonstrators at Azad Maidan, expressing serious concern about the implications of the bill.

1 of 9

These leaders and activists highlighted how the Bill, under the pretext of “public safety,” could be used to suppress dissent, criminalise activism, and target opposition voices. They noted that terms such as “radical Left-wing organisations” and “urban Naxal” remain undefined and dangerously broad in the amended draft, leaving space for arbitrary interpretation.

Other speakers also pointed out that the bill’s provisions—such as unchecked powers to evict communities (Section 9), seize properties (Section 10), and deny lower court remedies (Section 12)—mirror the most draconian aspects of laws like the UAPA and NSA.

From every corner of Maharashtra, a message of resistance

The crowd was a mix of students, youth, farmers, trade unionists, and senior citizens. Red flags and protest banners filled the grounds of Azad Maidan. Many held up pamphlets circulated by the organising groups, breaking down the bill’s most dangerous provisions and urging complete withdrawal—not mere amendments. Visuals from the ground show the scale and intensity of the crowd gathered at the ground. Protesters emphasised that the Joint Committee’s amendments are superficial and leave intact the state’s power of surveillance, to prosecute, and punish under vaguely defined offences (Detailed report on earlier protests may be viewed here)

Backdrop: The Bill’s imminent passage in the Monsoon Session

The Maharashtra government had invited public comments and criticisms on the Bill, to be submitted by April 1. Among thousands of others, Citizens for Justice and Peace had also submitted an elaborate critique. This may be read here. The protest coincides with the start of the Maharashtra Assembly’s monsoon session, where the revised Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill is likely to be introduced. Although the Joint Committee proposed some changes—such as limiting the bill’s applicability to organisations and raising the investigation officer’s rank—rights groups and opposition parties have argued that these are cosmetic changes that do not alter the repressive core of the legislation.

The continued use of ideological terms, the lack of statutory definitions, and the shielding of officials from prosecution (Sections 14 and 15) have all been flagged as severe threats to constitutional safeguards. The committee’s refusal to hold public hearings with those who submitted objections has also drawn sharp criticism.

The joint coalition of activists, people’s organisations and the left front have strongly critiqued the published ‘report of the Joint Committee.’ Citizens for Justice and Peace presents its critique here:

Note on Joint Committee Report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024: Superficial amendments, structural repression intact

June 30, 2025

What has been termed as the Joint Committee’s report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 (Assembly Bill No. 33), appears to be a clear whitewash of the actual discussions that took place with members of the Opposition over five sittings since the Committee was formed. The obvious motive of this government is not even to record or allow the dissent and voices that were raised by members of the Opposition (Maha Vikas Aghadi) on key aspects of the Bill which includes definitions, seizure and arrest powers, superintendence of investigations, constitution of the Advisory Board and also the denial of one tier of justice, the district courts for first appeals.

Fundamentally, the very insistence of this regime and administration for the passage of a fourth law to ostensibly counter terrorism (or Naxal-caused terror) when Maharashtra already has the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) since 1999, the Unlawful Practices (Prevention) Act since its inception –first 1967 and post 2004 with multiple amendments since it’s a central law—and finally the 2023 Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) Sections 113-119 that have incorporated all draconian sections of the UAPA in everyday criminal law. [The justification, therefore that ‘other states have such a law’ is nullified by the facts: these states had enacted these legislations before the UAPA in amended form applied to the entire country and also the BNS, 2023.]

What can be the reasons (or the motive) to bring in a fourth such legislation when the above stringent provisions are already in force? Except to use it as a sword over the heads of activists (political and social), writers, dissenters, political opponents—in fact any person/s who are “inconvenient” to the regime or administration? A fourth law with draconian provisions will make bail impossible!

The press note by the government on behalf of the Committee clearly reveal that the discussions and deliberations notwithstanding, the attitude of the state government has not changed and the final Bill (in few form) when it will be tabled, will continue to be riddled with core constitutional defects.

Changes outlined in the Press Note June 26, 2025 on “Committee’s Findings:

The changes made are cosmetic, rhetorical, and deliberately evasive. The bill retains its unconstitutional structure, vague terminology, and legal architecture that allows for the criminalisation of dissent, targeting of political opponents, and violation of fundamental rights.

Despite widespread opposition, extensive written objections, and participation from multiple political formations and civil society organisations, the Committee has made only three formal amendments:

1. Rewording the objective clause to target “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations”;
2. Recasting the composition of the Advisory Board;
3. Raising the investigating officer’s rank from Sub-Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police.

None of these changes address the key concerns raised regarding the need for multiplicity of counter terror laws, wide definitions, unchecked executive power, procedural violations, denial of legal remedy, and institutional impunity. This report, therefore, must be categorically rejected. The bill remains a direct attack on India’s constitutional order.

I. Title and Objective: Politically weaponised language, vague in law

Original title:

“A Bill to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful acts of persons and organizations…”

Amended title:

“A Bill to effectively prevent certain illegal activities of radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations…”

Analysis:

• The rewording does not narrow the scope. It simply replaces generic terms with ideologically charged and undefined phrases.
• The inclusion of “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations” is deliberately vague. No legal definition of “radical” is provided. The phrase “similar organisations” creates infinite elasticity, allowing any ideological formation—even peaceful or democratic—to be labelled a threat. [Note: Radical Right-Wing Organisations have escaped all consideration or mention!]
• The justification for this framing lies in the invocation of “urban Naxalism”—a politically loaded term with no statutory definition. Its continued use codifies the state’s ideological hostility to dissent.

Conclusion: This amendment intensifies the bill’s politically motivated purpose. Here is not a law to main peace or law and order, but a tool to terrorise and silent dissent. It reinforces a narrative in which civil society actors, trade unions, student groups, and political opponents can be branded as subversive. The bill’s objective remains a tool of ideological surveillance, not a legitimate legal safeguard. 

II. Advisory Board: Erosion of judicial independence

Original Clause 5(2):

The Advisory Board was to comprise individuals who “are or have been judges of a High Court or are eligible for appointment.”

Amended Clause:

Now allows appointment of:

• Retired High Court Judges
• Retired District Judges
• Government Advocates of the High Court

Analysis:

• This amendment is a deliberate dilution of judicial independence.
• Government advocates are functionaries of the executive. Their inclusion on a body meant to evaluate the legality of state actions obliterates the principle of neutral oversight.
• Retired district judges do not carry the constitutional status or independence of High Court judges.
• The executive retains unchecked power to choose pliant members, turning the Advisory Board into a formal rubber stamp.

Conclusion: The Advisory Board, which was supposed to serve as a procedural check, has now been structurally compromised. The amendment institutionalises executive capture of oversight mechanisms. 

III. Investigating Officer Rank: Cosmetic bureaucratic adjustment

Original Clause 15(1):

Police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to investigate offences under the Act.

Amended Clause:

Investigation restricted to officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above.

Analysis:

• Raising the rank of the investigating officer is an administrative change. It does not alter the grounds, process, or criteria of investigation.
• The real issue is not who conducts the investigation, but what can be investigated.
• The law allows vague, subjective interpretation of terms like “association,” “support,” or “membership” of radical groups.
• The UAPA and NSA demonstrate that higher rank officers have been equally complicit in abuse and arbitrary arrests.

Conclusion: This amendment is a public relations manoeuvre, not a safeguard. It creates the illusion of due process while leaving arbitrary detention and criminalisation of dissent fully operational.

IV. Structural defects the Committee has deliberately ignored

The most dangerous provisions of the original bill, identified in detailed submissions by multiple groups including CJP, remain untouched. The committee has not even acknowledged, let alone amended, the following especially:

Section 2(f): Overbroad definition of “Unlawful Activity”

• No revision made.
• The section allows any form of protest, critique, or public mobilisation to be interpreted as a threat to public order.

Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

• District Magistrates and Police Commissioners retain absolute powers to seize properties and evict residents from notified areas.
• Only a vague promise of “reasonable time” to vacate is offered to women and children.

Section 10(1): Confiscation of moveable property

• No legal safeguards introduced.
• Entire homes, records, belongings, and finances can be seized on executive suspicion.

Section 12: Bar on district-level legal remedy

• Individuals can only approach the High Court or Supreme Court to challenge state action.
• This provision deliberately denies access to justice for economically weaker citizens and violates the principle of accessible legal redress.

Sections 14 & 15: Blanket immunity to officials

• Officers and magistrates acting under the law are granted total immunity, even when they violate constitutional rights.
• No mechanisms for accountability or independent review have been introduced.

Conclusion: The bill continues to function as an extra-constitutional regime. It merges preventive detention, ideological policing, and property seizure into a legal framework shielded from public accountability and judicial review.

V. Committee’s Ideological Closing Statement: Criminalising youth and dissent

The report ends with a “recommendation” urging the state to act against the “growing attraction” of youth to Naxalism and to implement policies to “discourage” them and “bring them into the mainstream.”

Analysis:

• This ideological framing reinforces that the law is designed to monitor, control, and neutralise student movements, political education, and grassroots activism.
• The state’s role is redefined not as a guarantor of rights, but as a censor of ideas.

Conclusion: The bill is not preventive security legislation. It is a state doctrine against dissent, designed to criminalise political education, intellectual opposition, and mobilisation.

This report must be rejected in its entirety!

The Joint Committee has failed in its legislative duty to protect constitutional values. It has whitewashed a draconian bill under the guise of minor technical amendments. What remains is a legal instrument of political repression.

The bill:

• Treats opposition as extremism
• Treats mobilisation as subversion
• Treats dissent as treason

This is a dangerous precedent. Not just that the Maharashtra government has reduced the functioning of a democratically set up Committee with Members of the Opposition in the State Assembly to tokenism but is proceeding –riding roughshod over critiques of such a law—with a statute that will have dangerous consequences. If enacted, it will be used to target civil society, demolish protest movements, paralyse unions, and intimidate the political opposition across Maharashtra.

Note prepared by Team Citizens for Justice and Peace

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?

Maharashtra’s redrafted Public Security Bill narrows scope — but concerns about suppression of dissent persist

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

The post Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Framed as a measure to bolster public security, the bill instead severely curtails civil liberties, granting the state unchecked authority for surveillance, to detain, and criminalise dissent. CJP has flagged several provisions that could be weaponised to suppress free speech, peaceful assembly, and activism. Calling for its immediate withdrawal, the organisation warns that the bill mirrors the draconian framework of past laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA), both of which have been routinely misused to stifle opposition and target marginalised communities.

Key objections raised by CJP

1. Section (2) (f) (i) to (vii): Overbroad definitions of “an unlawful activity”

CJP has flagged Section (2) (f) (i), which defines “an unlawful activity” in vague and sweeping terms. The broad language allows the government to label almost any activity as a security threat, including peaceful protests, strikes, or political dissent. Such an expansive definition could be used to arbitrarily justify restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

2. Section 5(1)(2): Politicisation of the Advisory Board

The bill provides for the setting up of an Advisory Board under Section 5(1)(2) to adjudicate on actions taken by the state government, police, and administration. However, CJP has raised concerns over the qualifications of its members. Unlike previous laws governing public security and counter-terrorism, which mandated sitting or retired High Court judges, this bill allows for the appointment of individuals who “are, have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of the High Court.”

This wording dilutes the judicial independence of the Advisory Board by allowing for the inclusion of retired judges, non-appointed officials, or lawyers with no prior judicial experience. This opens the door for politically aligned or executive-friendly individuals to occupy key decision-making positions, making the Board prone to bias and manipulation in favour of the state.

3. Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

One of the most alarming provisions flagged by CJP is Section 9, which gives the District Magistrate (DM) or the Police Commissioner unchecked authority to take possession of, or seize, any notified area and evict persons from the premises. The bill provides only minimal protection for women and children, stating that they must be given a “reasonable time” to vacate—a vague and insufficient safeguard.

Such an arbitrary provision could be used to forcibly evict communities under the guise of maintaining public security, particularly targeting politically inconvenient groups, protest sites, or informal settlements.

4. Section 10(1): Extension of seizure powers to moveable property

Further compounding the concerns around Section 9, Section 10(1) grants the administration unchecked authority to seize moveable property, money, and other assets found within a seized premise. This means that not only can entire homes or offices be taken over, but all belongings inside can also be confiscated without clear legal safeguards.

CJP warns that such provisions can be used to financially ruin individuals or organisations that the government views as adversaries. Activists, journalists, and opposition members could be disproportionately affected by these extreme measures.

5. Section 12: Denial of legal redress at district level

Shockingly, Section 12 of the draft MSPP Bill, 2024 prevents individuals arrested under this law from seeking legal recourse at the district level. Instead, only the High Court and Supreme Court are designated as proper forums for filing petitions to challenge any actions under the law.

CJP has strongly criticised this provision, arguing that it directly violates India’s four-tier system of judicial redressal and creates unnecessary barriers to justice, particularly for economically disadvantaged individuals who may not have the resources to approach higher courts. The rationale for this provision remains unclear, raising concerns that it is intended to stifle legal challenges against the law.

6. Sections 14 and 15: Blanket immunity for police and bureaucrats

Under Sections 14 and 15, police officers and district magistrates are granted complete immunity from prosecution, even in cases where courts pass strictures against their misuse of the law. These sections explicitly state that no action can be initiated against such officials, even if they engage in blatant misuse or wrongful prosecution under the MSPS Bill.

CJP warns that these provisions effectively shield law enforcement from accountability, encouraging impunity and opening the door to widespread abuse of power. This provision closely resembles the impunity granted to security forces under draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which has led to grave human rights violations.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

CJP has strongly asserted that the MSPS Bill violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, including:

• Article 19 (Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association) – By allowing the government to criminalise protests, public gatherings, and activism, the bill directly undermines democratic freedoms.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) – Sections on preventive detention and surveillance threaten personal liberty and privacy.
• Article 14 (Right to Equality) – The arbitrary powers granted by the bill could lead to selective enforcement, disproportionately targeting marginalised communities, activists, and opposition groups.

CJP’s call for immediate withdrawal of the bill

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, as highlighted by CJP, represents a major threat to democracy and civil liberties. By granting the state unchecked powers to surveil, detain, and prosecute individuals without due process, the bill paves the way for state repression under the guise of public security. CJP’s objections serve as a crucial intervention in the fight to preserve constitutional freedoms, urging the government to scrap the bill and uphold democratic values.

The detailed objections may be read here.

Related:       

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill tabled in assembly, using the myth of “urban naxals” to supress dissent?

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

Modi’s government bypasses SC & Law Commission, no nuanced, strong penal sections on Hate Speech: BNS, 2023

The post CJP submits objections to Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 over serious threats to civil liberties appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case stems from a telephonic conversation that took place on February 25, 2025, during which Koratkar allegedly made both contentious and intimidating remarks to Indrajit Sawant, a historian. The incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

On Tuesday, February 25, soon after the reported telephonic threats, historian Sawant shared on social media a six-minute, 30 second audio recording of a phone conversation between (a man named) Koratkar and himself. With this recording he posted, “A man named Prashant Koratkar, who calls himself a Parashurami Brahmin, is making threats in the name of the honourable chief minister. I have received such threats before but I am sharing this recording to show how hatred and disrespect for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj persists among some people. I want the Maratha and Bahujan communities to realise this. Koratkar from Nagpur—neither he nor anyone else can scare a true follower of Shivaji Maharaj. Jai Shivray!”

Concerned about the nature of the threats made against him, Sawant recorded the conversation and shared it on social media before filing a police complaint. Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Zade of Juna Rajwada police station confirmed that an investigation had been launched, with police teams prepared to travel to Nagpur if necessary to track down Koratkar. Koratkar in the recorded conversation has, while lashing out at Sawant for his views, threatened him with the “present return of Brahmin rule in Maharashtra.”

Sawant has been vocal in his criticism of the film Chhaava, arguing that it distorts history by portraying Maharani Soyarabai as a villain while ignoring the role of Annaji Datto. Citing historical sources such as the writings of François Martin, the former French governor of Pondicherry, Sawant has contributed to the ongoing debate by revealing how it was Brahmin clerks had betrayed Sambhaji Maharaj to the Mughals. He also demanded the removal of incorrect historical information from Wikipedia to prevent misinformation.

Unable to stomach this rendering of historical facts, Koratkar reportedly threatened Sawant in the aforesaid phone conversation. His perceived proximity with politically powerful figures in Maharashtra today has led to the debate around his continued non-arrest and protection.

Protests erupted from last month itself following the transcript of the audio going viral. On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. Protesters also went to the Kolahpur police station to ensure action against him.

On March 1, the Kolhapur court had initially granted Koratkar interim protection from arrest, on the condition that he appear before the police and surrender the mobile phone and SIM card used during the call. However, responding to pressure and outrage over Koratkar’s remarks, the Maharashtra government challenged this interim relief before the Bombay High Court, which subsequently directed the Kolhapur sessions court to prioritise the hearing and decide on the bail application after considering all parties’ arguments.

During the final hearing, Koratkar’s legal counsel argued that he had been cooperating with the authorities and, therefore, should be granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution, however, strongly opposed the plea. Public Prosecutor Vivek Shukla asserted that the accused had tampered with key evidence—the mobile phone from which the alleged call was made—by erasing its data. He further argued that Koratkar had failed to comply with the conditions set by the court while granting interim relief, thereby forfeiting his right to seek further protection. Shukla also questioned why the journalist was seeking anticipatory bail instead of surrendering, stating that freedom should not be misused to evade legal scrutiny.

Asim Sarode, representing the complainant, further alleged that Koratkar had misled the court by falsely claiming his mobile phone had been hacked. He pointed out that instead of appearing before the police as directed, the accused had sent his mobile phone through his wife, raising concerns about his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Sarode urged the court to invoke Section 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the destruction of evidence, to ensure accountability for the alleged tampering.

Despite the court’s rejection of his bail plea, Koratkar remains un-arrested, intensifying public protests led by the Sakal Maratha community.

Bombay High Court intervenes, directs Kolhapur Court to hear all parties

On March 11, the Bombay High Court had reviewed the Maharashtra government’s plea challenging the Kolhapur sessions court’s interim protection order. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil directed the lower court to ensure that all parties, including the state government, were heard before making a final decision on Koratkar’s bail application.

During the proceedings, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state, argued that the Kolhapur sessions court had passed its earlier order granting interim relief without giving the prosecution an opportunity to present its case. He highlighted that Koratkar had failed to surrender his phone as per the court’s directions, instead sending it through his wife. Upon examination, it was found that all data had been erased, raising suspicions of evidence tampering. Venegaonkar maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover any deleted data that could be critical to the investigation.

The prosecution further pointed out that the sessions court had made certain observations about Koratkar’s social media accounts being hacked and donations being collected in his name before the case was registered. The state government contended that these findings were made without proper scrutiny and without hearing all parties, which was a violation of due process.

Koratkar’s defence, on the other hand, challenged the maintainability of the state’s plea, arguing that the interim relief order was legally sound. Meanwhile, the complainant’s lawyer, Asim Sarode, also raised objections, stating that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the sessions court granted Koratkar protection from arrest.

After hearing the arguments, the Bombay High Court clarified that it would not interfere with the merits of the case but expected the Kolhapur sessions court to decide the matter independently and in accordance with the law. The high court disposed of the state’s plea, reiterating that its observations should not influence the final decision of the lower court.

Mass protests and political pressure for arrest

On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. A delegation, including community leaders Prakash Khandagale, Amol Mane, Swapnil Kale, Alok Rasal, and Deepak Ingle, met Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Rashmitha Rao, who assured them that Koratkar would be arrested within 24 hours. However, when no action was taken by the next day, another protest erupted outside Beltarodi police station, with demonstrators urging authorities to file an FIR against Koratkar in Nagpur in addition to the existing case in Kolhapur.

Amid mounting pressure, former royal and community leader Raje Mudhoji Bhosale led a delegation to the Nagpur police commissioner’s office, demanding that Koratkar be charged under sedition laws. Protesters also accused Koratkar of attempting to create caste tensions by referencing the caste of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. The Citizen Action Committee warned that if Koratkar was not arrested, they would file complaints against him at multiple police stations.

With tensions running high for over 72 hours, the Sakal Maratha community has called for an urgent meeting to determine further action if authorities fail to act swiftly.

Political reactions and demand for swift action

The delay in Koratkar’s arrest has drawn criticism from political figures. On March 4, Kolhapur MP and descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, Shahu Shahaji Maharaj, questioned why the police had not yet acted against Koratkar. Speaking during an official visit to Nagpur, Shahu Maharaj stated that he would take up the matter with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis during his upcoming visit to Kolhapur.

Former Maharashtra minister Anil Deshmukh also criticised the inaction, suggesting that Koratkar was being shielded by influential figures. “His whereabouts are unknown, but how is that possible when police personnel were stationed outside his house? How did he disappear despite a security presence?” Deshmukh asked.

Amravati MP Balwant Wankhade echoed these concerns, stressing that individuals who insult revered historical figures should face strict consequences. “Those who make offensive statements against figures deeply respected by the people must not be spared. The government must take prompt action,” he asserted.

With pressure mounting from political leaders, civil society, and protest groups, the demand for Koratkar’s arrest has intensified. The coming days are expected to see further action from both the authorities and the protesting groups as tensions continue to escalate.

Maharashtra government’s silence, Koratkar’s political ties, and the systematic distortion of history

The Maharashtra government’s two-faced response – on the one hand appealing protection granted to him from arrest but on the other its reluctance or failure to arrest Prashant Koratkar– despite the overwhelming evidence against him and the widespread public demand for accountability, has exposed the double standards in law enforcement. Even as protests intensify across the state, top echelons of the government have chosen to remain silent, raising serious questions about whether political patronage is shielding Koratkar from arrest. The speculation is not baseless—recent visuals showing Koratkar in close proximity to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and senior police officials — have only reinforced allegations that the ruling establishment is protecting him. This selective application of the law is in stark contrast to how dissenters and activists are swiftly arrested, often on flimsy charges, while those with political connections continue to evade legal scrutiny.

These visuals have been taken from Dr. Prashant Koratkar – Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.448369837294425

The larger controversy surrounding Koratkar is not just about one individual’s remarks but is emblematic of a broader ideological project to distort Maharashtra’s history. The ongoing “Brahmanisation” of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is a deliberate attempt to whitewash the historical record and erase their true legacy. Sambhaji Maharaj, long regarded as a fearless warrior who resisted Mughal rule, is now being forcefully rebranded within a narrow caste framework to suit present-day political narratives, with attempts to paint him as a Brahmin leader rather than a Bahujan leader. At the same time, the erasure of historical nuances surrounding figures like Aurangzeb is being used as a tool to fuel communal tensions and stoke resentment.

The recent outbreak of violence in Nagpur over the portrayal of Chhatrapati Sambhaji and Aurangzeb underscores the dangerous consequences of this systematic distortion. The deliberate rewriting of history is not an academic exercise—it has real-world implications, as it foments hatred, deepens social divides, and often leads to violence. The Maharashtra government’s failure to act against Koratkar while allowing these tensions to escalate suggests that it is complicit in this divisive agenda. (A detailed report regarding the outbreak of violence may be read here.)

As the demand for Koratkar’s arrest grows louder, the government’s inaction is becoming increasingly indefensible. If he continues to evade arrest, this will only confirm what many already allege—that the law in Maharashtra does not apply equally to all, but is instead wielded as a weapon against the powerless while offering protection to those who enjoy political favour. The coming days will be a test of whether the government prioritises justice or remains beholden to its ideological allies at the cost of social harmony.

Background of the case

On February 26, 2025, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Prashant Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station for allegedly threatening historian Indrajit Sawant and making statements that could incite communal tensions. According to the police, the incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar as mentioned above. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

Following the backlash of widespread protests, Koratkar denied any involvement, insisting that he had no connection with Sawant and that the voice in the audio clip was not his. He criticised Sawant for publicly naming him without verification, stating that he had since received multiple threats. Koratkar announced plans to file a defamation complaint and approach the cyber cell for redress.

A case had been registered against Koratkar under sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 151(4), and 352 of the BNS, and investigations are ongoing.

In response, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to police officials, Koratkar’s comments were aimed at provoking caste-based tensions. Sub-inspector Santosh Gawade is leading the investigation, and technical evidence is being gathered with assistance from the cyber cell.

Koratkar has denied all allegations, claiming that the voice in the viral audio clip is not his. He accused Sawant of defaming him without verification and asserted that he had been receiving threats since the controversy erupted. Koratkar had further announced plans to file a counter-complaint with the police and the cyber cell.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Similarly, T Raja Singh, notorious for his divisive views, has with his statements about “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” a theory that frames Muslims as a threat to India’s identity. Alongside these leaders, right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani has propagated harmful stereotypes and hate against Muslims.

Nitesh Rane: spreading misinformation and suspicion through alleged theories of ‘Love Jihad’ and ‘Land Jihad’

Nitesh Rane, the BJP MLA from Kankavli in the Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra and now the Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister, has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents of aggressive hate speech in the state. Many of his speeches from February 2025 have caused a significant uproar, raising concerns for the social climate in the state. 

February 20, 2025 

February 20, during a public felicitation event at Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Shri Swami Narendracharayaji Maharaj Nanijdhama in Ratnagiri, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a hate-filled speech targeting Muslims. 

Rane in his speech said that, “Because issues like Love Jihad and Land Jihad are actively happening around us. Through Love Jihad and religious conversion, a large-scale effort is underway to bring countless Hindu mothers and sisters into Islam by those engaging in Jihad.”

He propagated unfounded conspiracies about ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ intensifying his rhetoric by labelling Muslims as “jihadis.” Rane also criticised Mazhars and Dargahs, claiming that the said structures “pop up anywhere,”.

He further added that, “I have initiated a program through my ministry to make our 720-kilometer coastline Jihad- free. Therefore, in all these matters, it is extremely important for me to receive Swamiji’s guidance and blessings from time to time. All the illegal activities happening around us—wherever you look, spreading the green cloth, building mazars and tombs everywhere—against all this, our Maharashtra government will take a firm stand without any Hindutva-based bias. On this occasion, I assure Swamiji of this today.”

His words not only spread fear but are also baseless accusations against an entire religious community. His speech serves as another example of the dangerous rhetoric emerging from political figures in the region.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 19, 2025 

On February 19, at a Shiv Jayanti event organised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal in Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a series of inflammatory remarks targeting Muslims. He boldly declared, “This is a Hinduwadi government,” and went on to threaten that in Sindhudurg, anyone who even “looks at Hindus in an incorrect manner” would face consequences, urging people to contact him directly to “settle it before next Friday.”

Rane said that, “the Chief Minister is a staunch Hindutva. If anyone in this Sawantwadi, this Sindhudurga, keep evil eye at my Hindu religion, just give me a call, I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday. Don’t worry about anything.”

He also labelled Muslims as “green snakes,” who are involved in a deep-rooted conspiracy against Hindus. Rane’s speeches continued in this vein throughout the month of February, spreading more hateful conspiracy theories, and even suggesting that if Muslims “looked at Hindus in an incorrect manner,” they would face consequences. He stated that, “Our government is very bad. What is going on around I am aware of everything. You don’t have to struggle. Wherever something wrong is happening, wherever someone tries to slaughter a cow, wherever someone tries to smuggle, wherever green snakes try to wriggle, just make one call, and leave the rest of the arrangements to me.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 8, 2025 

On February 8, at the Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Kudal, Sindhudurg, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a divisive speech, alleging that ‘jihadis’ were targeting Hindu temples and again referring to Muslims as ‘green snakes.’ He said that India is a Hindu nation and alleged that Muslims were conspiring to turn the country into an Islamic state by 2047. Rane then propagated the baseless conspiracies of ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ fearmongering about the supposed Islamization of India. He accused Muslims of attempting to seize Hindu lands and religious sites, symbolically covering them with a ‘green shroud.’ 

Nitesh Rane’s speech is deeply problematic due to its divisive and inflammatory nature. He quite deliberately, and repeatedly perpetuates harmful stereotypes and spreads fear by framing certain religious communities as a threat to Hindu society. His speech begins with claims of “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and references to the “Waqf Board,” which without evidence, target Muslims and imply a coordinated effort against Hindus:

“While taking out these rallies, there were some cases of Love Jihad, some cases of Land Jihad, and some cases related to the Waqf Board. We, as the Sakal Hindu Samaj, took out those rallies and went to meet the affected families and we tried to provide them justice. How far have these Islamization and Jihadisation people reached? How much has their courage grown? You all should all imagine this. You people should be able to guess where the danger is from.”

This statement fuels unfounded fear and animosity, casting Muslims as a monolithic and hostile group. He further stokes this narrative by discussing the supposed encroachment of Muslims on religious sites, such as temples:

“I always wonder—if you want to spread Islam, why do you always target our temple lands? If you want to build a mosque or a dargah, then buy an open piece of land yourselves and say, ‘We want to build a mosque here, a dargah here.’ But they always want to do these things on the land of our temples.”

Such rhetoric incites division, mistrust, and hostility. He concludes by framing this as a grand conspiracy:

“By 2047, they want to turn our Hindu nation into an Islamic nation. Their evil eyes are on the temples, and we should be moving towards ensuring how to keep them safe,” Rane Said.

Rane referred Savarkar in his speech and said, “Swatantryaveer Savarkar has written very well that the Hindu society suffers more from Hindus themselves than from Muslims. Some of these people ask me how I can call it a Hindu nation, as it does not fit within the Constitution.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 5, 2025 

On February 5, at a public event organised by a coalition of far-right groups in Wagholi, Pune, BJP MLA Rane delivered an inflammatory anti-Muslim hate speech, propagating the baseless conspiracies of ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ while falsely claiming that Muslims aim to turn India into an Islamic state. 

During his speech, he urged Hindus to rent homes only to fellow Hindus, warning that “it starts with one Aslam, and then you have a hundred Aslams.” Targeting the azaan, he claimed that if Hindus rented to Muslims, soon they would be overrun and the azaan would echo five times a day. He openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging the audience to “just declare that you don’t rent to non-Hindus.” Rane further fuelled the conspiracy of ‘love jihad,’ continuing to spread baseless fears of a demographic threat.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 3, 2025 

On February 3, in Chandrapur, Rane made a chilling threat towards Muslims, declaring that acts like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and “cow slaughter” would no longer be tolerated. At a religious assembly, Rane openly warned the minority religious community, stating that the state had a Hindutva-based government, and if these issues persisted, they would take direct action.

He was quoted as saying:

“If these people sporting beards do not stop this Love Jihad, Land Jihad, and the drama against Hindu society in time, then even those sitting in Pakistan will not be able to recognize you. I guarantee.”

His rhetoric targets Muslims as a collective threat to Hindu society, presenting them as part of a grand conspiracy to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047. The speech perpetuates harmful myths such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” which have no basis in reality but are used to fuel hatred and division. Rane asserts:

“When the police conducted their inquiry and asked what exactly they were plotting here, they responded by saying that their goal is to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, and all their efforts are directed towards achieving that.”

This unfounded claim creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, portraying Muslims as scheming to overthrow the country’s demographic makeup.

He continues with further inflammatory statements:

“Because in the beginning, only one comes. Just one—someone named Aslam. And then he will bring 100 more Aslams along with him. He will start cooking food that we don’t prefer, and because of that smell, the Hindu community will begin to leave. Then, five times a day, their loudspeakers will start blaring.”

This passage not only reinforces the idea of Muslims as an invasive force but also promotes communal fear by linking Muslims to undesirable behaviour.

Additionally, Rane makes claims about “Love Jihad,” where he manipulates personal stories to push the narrative of Hindu girls being brainwashed:

“I have met sisters who have been victims of Love Jihad. You would be shocked to see their miserable condition. These girls are brainwashed to the extent that they refuse to recognize their own parents.”

This kind of rhetoric is not new for Rane, who has long harboured views that fuel communal animosity. At this event, he claimed that a strict law against religious conversions would be introduced in Maharashtra. He further warned Muslims involved in such acts of “trapping” Hindu women that the government would deal with them harshly, reinforcing the idea of an aggressive, intolerant Hindutva ideology.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister #NiteshRane on Monday sounded a stern warning to a particular community, stating that “Love jihad, Land Jihad, and cow slaughter” will not be tolerated. He emphasised that the state has a #Hindutva-oriented government and discussed the… pic.twitter.com/OZfJAUR67L

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) February 4, 2025

Recently, two FIRs were filed against Nitesh Rane for alleged hate speech targeting Muslims in Ahmednagar. Both FIRs were filed by the Ahmednagar Police against Nitesh Rane for his controversial remark. Rakesh Ola, the Superintendent of Police in Ahmednagar, confirmed the registration of two FIRs—one on September 1, 2024, and the other on September 2, 2024. These FIRs were filed at the Shrirampur and Topkhana police stations, respectively. Rane made his speeches during public meetings in the Shrirampur and Topkhana, in support of Hindu seer Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, who had made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad. Rane warned of repercussions if the Maharaj was harmed. In his address, Rane had said, “If anything happens to Maharaj, there will be repercussions. I’m going to give this threat in the language which you understand. If you have done anything against our Ramgiri Maharaj, we will kill you after barging into your mosques. You must remember this threat,” Rane had said, reported Times of India.

On September 5, an FIR was also filed against Nitesh Rane for his hate speech. The case was registered by the Gittikhadan police in Nagpur under sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR follows a complaint lodged by Mohammed Yunus Patel (47), a resident of Awasthi Nagar in South Nagpur, who alleged that Rane hurt the religious sentiments of a specific community during a speech he delivered in Ahmednagar on September 1, 2024, as HT reported.

Rane’s rhetoric, including claims of Love Jihad and Land Jihad, is not an isolated incident but part of a wider strategy by certain BJP leaders to stoke communal fears for political leverage.

T Raja Singh: Escalating divisive narratives

T Raja Singh, BJP’s MLA from Goshamahal in Hyderabad, is notorious for his controversial and often extremist views. His speech at the Deccan Summit in Pune on February 8, 2025, only further reinforced his reputation. Singh stirred the pot by promoting the divisive conspiracy theory of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” falsely claiming that Muslims were plotting to turn India into an Islamic nation.

“They have another Pakistan inside India, these land jihadis.”

Singh went on to misrepresent historical events and figures, wrongly alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had declared that Muslims had the first right to India’s resources. 

His rhetoric also targeted religious educational institutions, especially Madrasas, and he called for the construction of temples in historically disputed locations like Kashi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal, where Mosques stand at the moment. In his mind, these temples, built after destroying the current Islamic religious structures, would “remove the stains” from these sacred sites, promoting the idea of religious purity while targeting Islamic places of worship.

Singh’s speeches only contribute to a growing sense of fear and mistrust between India’s communities, feeding into a larger narrative of religious confrontation and division.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Kajal Hindustani: A right-wing influencer encouraging harmful communal divisions

February 19, 2025 

Kajal Hindustani is another key figure spreading dangerous communal poison. At a Shiv Jayanti event in Nagpur on February 19, Hindustani not only pushed the harmful “love jihad” narrative but also revived harmful stereotypes about Muslims. She referred to Muslims as “jihadis,” equating them with violence and radicalism. Additionally, she launched an attack on the Muslim practice of Azaan, fuelling the existing prejudice against Islamic religious practices.

This kind of speech is highly problematic, as it promotes an environment where one community’s practices and identity are vilified and targeted. Hindustani’s reach as an influencer amplifies her harmful messages, reaching a much wider audience.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Following the complaint filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) on October 25, 2024, against Kajal Shingala, also known as Kajal Hindustani, for delivering an anti-Muslim hate speech at an event in Thane, an FIR was registered on October 30, 2024, at the Wagle Estate Police Station in Thane. The FIR charges Hindustani under sections 299, 302, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which address offenses related to promoting religious animosity and public mischief. In addition, the event’s organizer, Veer Bahadur Yadav, was also booked for his involvement in permitting the speech. 

Ashwini Upadhyaya: Legitimising hate and conspiracy theories

February 20, 2025 

Ashwini Upadhyaya, a Supreme Court lawyer and prominent BJP leader, has also been vocal in spreading far-right narratives. On February 20, at a lecture on the Indian Constitution in Parbhani, he advocated for the restoration of “historic sacred places” like Kashi, Mathura, and Bhojshala, referring to which he claimed that the Mosque had been built after destroying temples. This rhetoric is rooted in the ideological push for the Ram Mandir, built at the destruction site of Babri Majid, and other religious sites to be reclaimed as symbols of Hindu supremacy.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Upadhyaya’s speeches are filled with conspiracy theories, including baseless claims about “love jihad” and “land jihad.” He further exacerbated these fears by drawing on international examples, citing China and Israel as models for population control measures. Linking population control to “love jihad” reflects a troubling trend where he frames demographic changes, especially Muslim migration, as a grave threat to India’s Hindu identity.

February 11, 2025 

On February 11, in Raigarh, Upadhyaya made statements about “infiltration jihad” and the alleged presence of six crore “infiltrators” in India, many of whom, according to him, were Muslims. Such claims serve no purpose other than to stoke fear and division in society.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 2, 2025 

On February 2, in Pune, at the V.D. Savarkar Memorial Lectures organized by Swanand Janakalyan Pratishthan, Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay demonized Muslims by selectively citing cases where Hindu women were murdered by Muslim men. He stirred fear about ‘infiltration’ and led the audience in an oath against alleged ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ promoting unfounded and divisive claims about demographic threats.

The video of speech can be seen here:

The role of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti: furthering hate and division

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, a far-right organisation, also plays a significant role in spreading of conspiracies and peddling hatred with potential to harm our social fabric and harmony. On February 3, during a press conference on Bangladeshi ‘infiltrators’ at Marathi Patrakar Sangh, Mumbai, organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, Sanatan Sanstha leader Abhay Vartak claimed that on alleged Bangladeshi “infiltrators,”. Abhay Vartak, claimed that up to ten lakh Bangladeshi immigrants live in Mumbai, which he linked to an increase in crimes and unemployment. His remarks were clearly aimed at inciting fear and suspicion towards the Muslims living in Mumbai, holding them responsible for collectively attacking the Indian economy. Vartak further promoted the conspiracy of “land jihad” and “love jihad,” underscoring how these controversial and harmful ideas are being propagated at multiple levels.

The impact of hate speech on Maharashtra and beyond

The hate-filled speeches delivered by these lawmakers and influencers are not only harming Maharashtra’s social fabric but also endangering the unity of the nation. Such rhetoric creates an environment where one minority community feels persecuted, that can lead to a cycle of hate and retaliation. Moreover, these statements are dangerous as they normalize a call for violence and discrimination against a particular religious community, portraying them as collectively acceptable responses to perceived grievances.

By invoking divisive terms like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “infiltration jihad,” these above-mentioned leaders are playing on people’s fears, creating imaginary threats to the nation’s demographic and religious balance. 

Furthermore, these speeches shrinking the very foundation of India’s secular democracy, where all religions are meant to be treated equally. Instead, they promote a vision of India where one religion is dominant and all others are viewed with suspicion and hostility.

The role of authorities in curbing hate speech

The time has come for a serious conversation about the accountability of public figures, particularly legislators, who use their platforms to promote hate and division. In Maharashtra, BJP leaders like Nitesh Rane, T Raja Singh, Ashwini Upadhyaya, and others have proven that they are willing to sow communal discord for political gain. Their speeches not only undermine the values of unity and secularism but also pose a grave threat to the fabric of society.

It is critical for the authorities to take swift action against hate speech and hold leaders accountable. The continued silence and inaction will only embolden others to follow in their footsteps, further poisoning the political discourse and deepening the divisions within our society. The future of Maharashtra, and indeed India, depends on the strength of its commitment to secularism, equality, and justice. It is time for the nation to stand united against hate, no matter where it originates.

Related

Mtra Elections: On CJP’s complaint on an MCC violation FIR has been registered against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

The post Leaders and the spread of divisive narratives appeared first on SabrangIndia.