Objections | SabrangIndia News Related to Human Rights Tue, 06 May 2025 10:30:27 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Objections | SabrangIndia 32 32 Maharashtra’s Special Public Security Bill, 2024 faces massive pushback, receives record 12,750 objections https://sabrangindia.in/maharashtras-special-public-security-bill-2024-faces-massive-pushback-receives-record-12750-objections/ Tue, 06 May 2025 10:30:27 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41621 The Maharashtra government’s proposed bill, allegedly aimed at enhancing public security, has sparked unprecedented opposition, with rights groups and citizens raising serious concerns over its impact on civil liberties, democracy, and dissent

The post Maharashtra’s Special Public Security Bill, 2024 faces massive pushback, receives record 12,750 objections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The Special Public Security Bill, 2024, proposed by the Maharashtra government, has ignited a storm of public opposition, drawing a record-breaking 12,750 suggestions and objections, according to a report by Hindustan Times. This marks the highest-ever public response to any draft legislation in the history of the Maharashtra legislature, significantly surpassing the 700-odd responses submitted in 2020 against the Shakti Criminal Laws (Maharashtra Amendment) Bill.

The objections were invited by a 25-member Joint Select Committee (JSC) comprising legislators from both houses. The committee is scheduled to deliberate on the objections at a crucial meeting on May 21, 2025 where it is also expected to hear from representatives of over 100 civil society organisations. These groups have strongly criticised the bill, calling it “anti-democratic” and unconstitutional.

Originally tabled in July 2024, shortly after the Lok Sabha elections, the bill was referred to the JSC for further scrutiny. Since then, the committee has convened two meetings, and officials now report that over 90% of the responses oppose the bill. Many submissions offer detailed, section-wise critiques, arguing that the legislation could have chilling effects on dissent and civil liberties.

The bill grants the state sweeping powers to act against individuals allegedly associated with or supporting “urban Naxalism”. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has publicly defended the bill, asserting that Naxalite activity is no longer confined to rural areas and has found its way into cities through frontal organisations. As reported by Hindustan Times, he maintains that these urban networks pose a serious internal security threat.

However, rights groups and legal experts warn that such legislation could enable state overreach, criminalise dissent, and be used to target activists, journalists, students, and others critical of the government. “The objections we’ve received have been categorised thematically and analysed section-by-section,” said a senior legislative official, as per the HT report. “More than 90% of submissions are in opposition, with detailed reasoning challenging the bill’s core provisions.”

Despite the opposition, the Mahayuti government appears determined to push ahead. According to Hindustan Times, officials in the home department confirmed that the government aims to get the bill passed in the upcoming monsoon session of the legislature, beginning June 30. One official claimed that many objections are based on “misinformation” about the bill’s intent. “Most of the feedback is repetitive and rooted in misconceptions,” the officer said. “The JSC will work to dispel these misunderstandings during the review.

The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether Maharashtra’s government heeds the unprecedented civic response, or proceeds with legislation that critics argue could fundamentally weaken democratic freedoms in the state.

Widespread protests against Maharashtra’s Special Public Security Bill

On April 22, 2025, a state-wide protest against the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), 2024 saw over 78 demonstrations across 36 districts. Citizens, civil society groups, and political parties united in opposition, denouncing the bill as anti-democratic and draconian.

Ulka Mahajan, state convenor of the Bharat Jodo Andolan, emphasized their continued resistance, citing a massive response to protests across the state. “This bill isn’t about public security; it’s a tool for suppression and autocracy,” she told Hindustan Times.

In Sindhudurg, a formal memorandum was submitted to the District Collector, calling for the bill’s withdrawal, citing its unconstitutional overreach and potential to stifle dissent. Similarly, Nanded witnessed a Satyagraha by the Jan Suraksha Vidhayak Virodhi Samiti, with leaders warning of the bill’s harmful impact on democratic rights. In Goregaon (West), protesters staged a dharna, denouncing the bill’s intent, while in Thane, workers and activists rallied outside the District Collector’s office, labelling the bill as anti-worker and anti-democratic.

The protests culminated in a call for a massive march to the Vidhan Bhavan on June 30, the opening day of the monsoon session, signalling ongoing resistance against the bill’s passage.

Details of the protests may be read here.

CJP raised concerns over the contentious Bill

On April 1, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) submitted detailed objections to the MSPS Bill, calling attention to its broad, ambiguous provisions that pose serious risks to civil liberties and constitutional rights. The bill, initially framed to enhance public security, is criticised for granting the state excessive powers of surveillance, detain, and suppress dissent. CJP warned that the bill mirrors past laws like the UAPA and NSA, often misused to target marginalised communities and stifle opposition.

Key objections raised by CJP include:

1. Section 2(f) (i)-(vii): Overbroad definitions of “Unlawful Activity”

CJP highlighted that the bill’s vague definition of “unlawful activity” allows the state to label peaceful protests, strikes, and political dissent as security threats, potentially restricting fundamental freedoms.

2. Section 5(1)(2): Politicisation of the advisory board

The bill allows non-judicial figures, including retired judges and non-appointed officials, to be appointed to the Advisory Board. This, risks compromising judicial independence and allowing political influence in key decisions.

3. Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

CJP points out that Section 9 grants unchecked authority to evict people and seize property under the guise of public security, with minimal safeguards for vulnerable groups like women and children.

4. Section 10(1): Seizure of moveable property

The bill permits authorities to seize not just properties, but also moveable assets, including money and belongings, without clear legal safeguards. This could be used to financially harm activists and opposition groups.

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

Section 12 restricts legal recourse for those arrested under the bill to the High Court or Supreme Court, bypassing the district courts and potentially barring access to justice, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals.

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

These sections provide immunity to police officers and district magistrates from prosecution, even in cases of misuse of the law, promoting impunity and encouraging potential human rights violations.

CJP had urged the immediate withdrawal of the MSPS Bill, calling it a dangerous overreach that threatens fundamental rights and undermines democratic freedoms.

Detailed objections may be read here.

 

Related:

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety 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 Maharashtra’s Special Public Security Bill, 2024 faces massive pushback, receives record 12,750 objections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
How Thousands of Assam’s Young may be rendered Citizenship-less: NRC https://sabrangindia.in/how-thousands-assams-young-may-be-rendered-citizenship-less-nrc/ Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:31:39 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2019/07/27/how-thousands-assams-young-may-be-rendered-citizenship-less-nrc/ Hajela’s affidavit before the SC evokes a sharp reaction Guwahati, July 27, 2019: The latest order from the Supreme Court on the vexatious NRC issue, passed on July 23, 2019 has evoked a strong reaction from the ruling party at both the state and centre, especially because it refused their request (made on affidavit) for […]

The post How Thousands of Assam’s Young may be rendered Citizenship-less: NRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Hajela’s affidavit before the SC evokes a sharp reaction

Guwahati, July 27, 2019: The latest order from the Supreme Court on the vexatious NRC issue, passed on July 23, 2019 has evoked a strong reaction from the ruling party at both the state and centre, especially because it refused their request (made on affidavit) for the re-verification of 20% of the NRC documents collected during the Claims and Corrections process from the border districts of Assam and a similar 10% re-verification in the state’s other districts.

The Order may be read here.

Likewise the main applicant in the case, Assam Public Works also reacted sharply on the issue as the Supreme Court denied their request for a further re-verification of 100% of the NRC documents from the names of those who made it to the final draft NRC. The ground for the SC’s refusal to grant this prayer was because 27% of re- verification has already been completed so far.

Though the ruling party and the private petitioner, Assam Public Works, have expressed public displeasure at the Supreme Court’s latest order, all other democratic organisations and individuals, including those belonging to religious and linguistic minorities, have come out strongly in favour of the order. According to them, the demand for re-verification is nothing but an attempt to dilute the entire NRC process by the present government and to harass the genuine Indian citizens under the garb of repeated hearings.

Nevertheless, some crucial issues that are reflected in the order of Supreme Court of July 23, will have serious implications in the near future.

The Supreme Court order quoted paragraphs 7, 7a, 7b, 7c and 8 of the affidavit submitted by Pratik Hajela, the state co-ordinator for the NRC on which he seeks the opinion of the highest court.

The paras that cited by Pratik Hajela came out in the public domain as the office of the NRC was compelled to issue a public notice on the issue, following the directions of the Court.

The public notice may be read here.

Through this pubic notice it appears Prateek Hajela, the state co-ordinator for NRC, is not only seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court on certain issues but has also made clear his own stance and opinion.

It may be worthy of mention here that the entire process under which the NRC is being completed is under the legal framework laid down under the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2003 and the Modalities prepared in the process for updating NRC.

However, as paragraphs 7 and 8 reveal, Hajela’s affidavit and subsequent public notice reveal, both militate against both the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rule, 2003.

Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta of Gauhati High Court states, “Clause 7 (a) of the affidavit is contrary to Citizenship Act. The clause 7(c) will create a humanitarian crisis in the State of Assam as it will specifically affect minor children.”

With regards to paragraph 8 of the affidavit advocate Mrinmoy Dutta is of the opinion that “all people cleared by IM(DT) must be included in updated NRC. However, they may require to clear themselves in the NRC process also.”  
 
The basic issue – – as revealed in the most recent public notice by the Co-ordinator – –  is that the entire process of updating NRC has been derailed.

 

The post How Thousands of Assam’s Young may be rendered Citizenship-less: NRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>