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.

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.

Initially tabled in July 2024 after the Lok Sabha elections, the bill was sent to the committee in December amid widespread opposition. Many had warned that the proposed legislation would grant the state sweeping powers to crack down on dissent under the guise of targeting Naxalism, by criminalising a wide range of political and ideological activity as “unlawful.” The original draft allowed for the prosecution of individuals, raising alarms over arbitrary arrests and the silencing of voices critical of the state.

From ‘individuals and organisations’ to ‘leftist and hard-line organisations’

In the face of this backlash, the 26-member committee—comprising MLAs from multiple parties—has amended the bill’s stated objectives. As per the HT report, the revised text now limits enforcement to “leftist and hard-line organisations” and removes references to individual’s altogether. According to the report, the objective has been reframed to read: “…to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of leftist and hard-line organisations.”

This shift is significant but far from sufficient. While the wording may now exclude individuals from direct prosecution, the bill retains broad and ambiguous language—terms like “leftist,” “hardline,” and especially “urban Naxal”—that are politically loaded and legally undefined. These phrases have routinely been deployed to smear activists, academics, students, and protestors. Nothing in the amended draft clearly prevents such misuse.

A government official quoted in the Hindustan Times acknowledged that the initial draft had sparked fears of sweeping state action against critics of government and constitutional authorities. The revised language, he claimed, should reassure the public that the focus is strictly on organisational actors. But the lack of any statutory definition or safeguard mechanisms makes this assurance ring hollow.

Procedural tweaks: Cosmetic or meaningful?

The committee has introduced a few procedural changes. The HT report provides that the advisory board that authorises investigations under the law will now be headed by a retired High Court judge, replacing the earlier proposal of a senior government law officer. The investigating officer’s rank has also been raised—from a sub-inspector to an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). These are framed as checks on misuse, but without independent oversight or judicial review at the stage of designation, they offer little substantive protection.

There’s also a clarification that the law will not be applied retrospectively. Past associations with banned organisations will not attract prosecution under the new framework—another attempt to blunt accusations of arbitrary state action.

The final meeting of the joint select committee is scheduled for June 25, after which the revised bill is expected to be tabled in the monsoon session of the Maharashtra Assembly beginning June 30.

‘Urban naxal’ still remains

Significantly, the committee has retained the term “urban Naxal” in the bill’s objectives. The phrase has no legal basis and has become a political tool to discredit activists and intellectuals. Its continued presence in the draft signals that the state remains invested in a narrative that conflates political opposition and civil resistance with insurgency.

BJP state president and revenue minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule, who chairs the committee, defended the bill by pointing to similar laws in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which he claimed have been effective in curbing Naxal recruitment. He asserted that the bill would deter “mind poisoning” of youth by left-wing extremists, as per the HT report.

On the other hand, legislators from the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) said their support would depend on further clarifications and hearings. Jitendra Awhad noted that while the bill has been diluted, ambiguity persists. “We were told the term ‘left-wing extremist and hardliner’s refers only to unlawful activity by known Naxal-linked organisations, not individuals,” he said. Another committee member, Shashikant Shinde, said they had asked for all organisations that submitted objections to be invited for formal hearings before the final draft is approved.

Civil society remains firm: This bill must be opposed

For civil society groups, the amendments don’t go far enough. The bill still leaves dangerous room for interpretation. Activist Ulka Mahajan, state convenor of Bharat Jodo Andolan, called the revised draft “a repackaged threat” and confirmed that mass protests are being planned for the opening day of the monsoon session. “The law is being written in a way that allows the government to decide who is ‘hard-line’ or ‘leftist’. That could mean unions, student bodies, political critics—anyone who challenges the ruling regime,” she said, as quoted by the HT report.

Mahajan also flagged the complete absence of any mention of right-wing organisations or their activities in the bill. “Who decides what’s unlawful? And why is there no equivalent scrutiny of extremist groups on the other end of the spectrum?” she asked.

Despite tweaks to its language and structure, the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 continues to carry the risk of being used as a blunt instrument against dissent. The amendments may limit some excesses, but they do not address the core design of a law that conflates opposition with extremism—and hands the state the power to act on that conflation. As things stand, the threat of overreach remains embedded in the architecture of the bill itself.

It is essential to note that on April 22, 2025, Maharashtra had witnessed a coordinated, state-wide protest under the banner of the Maharashtra Public Safety Bill Anti-Conflict Committee, demanding the complete withdrawal of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024. Far from being a routine demonstration, this agitation marked the culmination of six weeks of unprecedented mobilisation across the state by a broad alliance of people’s movements, civil liberties organisations, and opposition parties.

At the heart of the protests was an extraordinary coalition: left parties including the CPI, CPI(M), CPIML, Lal Nishan Party, Satyashodhak Communist Party, and Shetkari Kamgar Paksh have joined hands with grassroots movements like the Shramik Mukti Dal, Sarvahara Jan Andolan, and civil rights groups including the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Major opposition parties under the Maha Vikas Aghadi—the Shiv Sena (UBT), Congress, and NCP (Sharad Pawar faction)—had publicly pledged support.

From Mumbai to rural Thane, the protest on April 22 had span nearly every major district. Demonstrators assembled at collectorates, tehsil offices, and key public spaces: Bandra Collectorate in Mumbai; Ambegaon, Junnar and Pune Collectorate in Pune; Samvidhan Chowk in Nagpur; and Shahapur, Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, Palghar, and Thane in the district’s tribal belts. (Details may be read here.)

CJP’s formal objections: A detailed constitutional indictment

On April 1, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace submitted a detailed memorandum to the Joint Select Committee reviewing the bill, calling for its total withdrawal. The CJP’s objections amount to a searing constitutional critique, warning that the bill effectively replicates and expands the punitive architecture of laws like the UAPA and NSA, both of which have been repeatedly misused to target dissenters and marginalised communities.

The organisation highlighted numerous provisions, many of which have now reportedly been amended, that would erode fundamental rights and shield state actors from accountability:

• Section 2(f): Vague and overbroad definitions of “Unlawful Activity”

The bill’s definition of “unlawful activity” in Section 2(f)(i–vii) was so sweeping that it risks criminalising virtually any form of dissent—from peaceful protests and strikes to critical commentary on government policies. The absence of precise legal thresholds opens the door for arbitrary action by authorities.

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

The proposed Advisory Board—a supposed safeguard—lacked judicial independence. Unlike precedent statutes requiring a sitting or retired High Court judge, the bill allowed appointments of those merely “qualified” to be judges. This subtle shift undermines impartiality and enables the inclusion of individuals with close executive ties or political loyalties, compromising the board’s neutrality.

• Section 9: Unfettered powers of eviction and seizure

Section 9 authorised District Magistrates or Police Commissioners to seize property and evict occupants from designated “notified areas,” with minimal procedural protection. The provision’s vague safeguard for women and children—granting only a “reasonable time” to vacate—is deeply inadequate. In practice, this opens the door for forced evictions of protest sites or politically disfavoured communities.

• Section 10(1): Extension to movable property

In tandem with Section 9, Section 10(1) empowered the state to seize all movable property—money, documents, personal effects—within targeted premises. The clause enables the financial and organisational crippling of individuals and groups deemed adversarial to the regime, with little scope for legal redress.

• Section 12: Restricting access to justice

Perhaps most shockingly, Section 12 restricted legal recourse to only the High Courts and Supreme Court, barring district-level courts from hearing challenges under the Act. This creates an unjust barrier for the poor and marginalised, effectively denying justice to those without the means to approach higher courts. It also contravenes India’s four-tier judicial system, violating the principle of accessible and decentralised justice.

• Sections 14 and 15: Legal impunity for state officials

Sections 14 and 15 conferred blanket immunity upon police officers and district officials, even in cases of wrongful action or clear judicial censure. The language explicitly forbids the initiation of proceedings against these actors, echoing the impunity seen under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which has a notorious record of facilitating human rights abuses.

CJP’s analysis asserted that the Bill is a direct assault on India’s constitutional framework. Key rights under the Constitution are clearly at stake:

• Article 19 – Freedom of speech, assembly, and association are rendered meaningless when dissent itself is criminalised.
• Article 21 – Preventive detention and mass surveillance powers embedded in the bill endanger the right to life and liberty.
• Article 14 – The vague, discretionary powers granted to the executive invite selective targeting of political opponents, making equality before law an illusion.

Detailed objections raised by CJP may be read here.

Not a revision—But a repackaging of state overreach?

Despite cosmetic amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee—such as limiting applicability to organisations and raising the rank of investigating officers—the bill’s core structure remains authoritarian. The continued use of undefined labels like “urban Naxal” and “hardliner” fuels fears of arbitrary designation and persecution. Civil society actors have warned that even moderate reformist organisations or opposition groups could be labelled as “threats” under this law.

As Maharashtra prepares for the bill’s likely reintroduction in the Monsoon Session beginning June 30, the civil protests stand as a critical moment of democratic resistance. This isn’t just about defeating one law—it’s about upholding the constitutional promise of civil liberties and preventing the institutionalisation of state repression under the pretext of public safety.

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 Trimmed at the edges, dangerous at the core? Maharashtra’s Public Security Bill still raises alarms, to be reintroduced during Monsoon session appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.

In Sindhudurg, a formal memorandum was submitted to the District Collector by Shri Bhaskar Kasar, representing the coordinated anti-bill movement. Addressed to DM Walawalkar, the memorandum called for the scrapping of the MSPS Act, citing its unconstitutional overreach and misuse of the term ‘public security’ to suppress dissent and target marginalised communities.

In Nanded, members of the Jan Suraksha Vidhayak Virodhi Samiti staged a Satyagraha, sitting in peaceful protest under a banner demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Bill. Community leaders and activists took turns addressing the gathering, warning of the chilling implications of this law for citizens’ rights and democratic discourse.

Symbolic acts of protest also marked the day’s events. In a striking demonstration held in Goregaon (West), protesters staged a dharna to denounce what they called the “insidious intention of the State” in introducing a bill “mischievously titled” as a Jan Suraksha (Public Security) Act. One protester commented that “even canines have understood the threat to democracy,” referencing the presence of a protest dog draped in a sloganed banner—a biting visual critique of the government’s attempt to silence criticism.

At Beed district, part of the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar (Aurangabad) division, a mass sit-in was held outside the Collector’s Office. People’s movements and Left front parties jointly led the action, warning that the Bill aims to usher in an era of “autocratic rule” by robbing citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Placards and speeches throughout the day declared: “Under the guise of Jan Suraksha, they are snatching away our right to speak, to organise, to protest. This is not security—this is suppression.”

In Raigad, parallel protests took place both at the District Collector’s Office and the Tehsildar’s Office in Uran.

While Mumbai’s Bandra Collectorate saw a gathering of progressive groups rallying under the slogan: “Awaken, progressive society of Mumbai! Join the protest against the anti-people Maharashtra Public Security Act on April 22nd at 3 PM in front of the Bandra Collector’s Office. Scrap the Jan Suraksha Act. Inquilab Zindabad!”

In Nanded, the Jan Suraksha Vidhayak Virodhi Samiti held a Satyagraha demanding the scrapping of the Maharashtra Public Security Bill 2024. Protesters gathered under a large tent bearing banners that read “Jan Suraksha Vidhayak Radd Karo”, asserting that the law was aimed at silencing dissent and eroding constitutional freedoms.

Speeches were delivered by Comrade Sanjay Nangare (Shiv Sena UBT), Adv. Avinash Magre (Congress), Dr. Amol Phadke (Congress), and Dattatray Funde (Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana), all sharply criticising the Bill’s provisions and the threat they pose to democracy. A memorandum was submitted to Tehsildar Prashant Sangade during the demonstration.

Key attendees included Com. Adv. Subhash Lande (CPI), Bhagwanrao Gaikwad, Babanrao Pawar, Dattatray Are, Vaibhav Shinde, Ram Lande, Vishnu Gore, Balasaheb Mhaske, Ashok Najan, Adv. Afroz Shaikh, Babulal Sayyed, Geeta Thorve, Anjali Bhujbal, Mrs. Sable, and others.

In Thane, members of the Bharat Jodo Abhiyan and the Maharashtra State Workers’ Union (Thane district) staged a protest outside the District Collector’s office, decrying the Maharashtra Public Security Bill 2024 as anti-democratic and anti-worker.

The diverse and decentralised nature of these protests reflects the intensity of opposition to the MSPS Bill across Maharashtra.

Critics of the Bill have raised serious constitutional and legal objections. The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 allows the state to declare any organisation “unlawful” for acting against the “security of the state” or “public order”—terms that remain undefined and dangerously vague. The Bill gives sweeping powers to the police, including warrantless searches and seizures, extended pre-trial detention, and immunity from prosecution. It also empowers the government to seize the property of those accused, even before conviction, and criminalises ‘support’ to unlawful organisations in ways that can encompass mere association, speech, or financial transactions.

Legal experts and rights defenders have warned that the legislation mirrors the most repressive features of central laws like the UAPA and the erstwhile TADA, but with weaker procedural safeguards. It also bypasses judicial scrutiny by allowing the executive to set up “Public Security Councils” to take punitive action. These measures, protestors argue, are not about ensuring safety but about consolidating power and shrinking democratic space.

As the protests continue to gather momentum and testimonies of resistance pour in from across the state, the message is clear: the people of Maharashtra are not willing to cede their rights in the name of a security paradigm that criminalises dissent.

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 From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the past six weeks, an unprecedented coordination effort has been underway, uniting left parties, progressive organisations, human rights groups, and people’s movements across the state. This united front—comprising the CPI, CPI(M), Shetkari Kamgar Paksh, CPIML, Lal Nishan Party, Satyashodhak Communist Party, Shramik Mukti Dal, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), PUCL, and Sarvahara Jan Andolan, among others—has culminated in this planned day of state-wide action. Major opposition parties including the Maha Vikas Aghadi and its constituents—Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and NCP (Sharad Pawar)—have also publicly extended their support to these protests.

Thousands of pamphlets have been disseminated across the state, particularly those authored by CJP, outlining the bill’s draconian provisions and urging citizens to join the resistance. The agitation on April 22 will span virtually every major district in Maharashtra, covering district collectorates, tehsil and taluka offices, and important public squares. In Mumbai, demonstrators will gather outside the Collectorate in Bandra. In Pune, protests will take place at the Collectorate and in Ambegaon and Junnar. In Nagpur, the protest will take place around Samvidhan Chowk. Thane district will see action at the Collector’s Office, as well as in Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, and Palghar tehsils. Additional protest locations in Thane include Shahapur tehsil.

Planned protests across Maharashtra

On April 22, widespread demonstrations, dharnas, and sit-ins will be held at government offices, district collectorates, and tehsil headquarters across multiple districts of the state. The key protest sites include:

• Mumbai – At the Collector’s Office, Bandra
• Pune – Collectorate and Ambegaon, Junnar offices
• Nashik – Collectorate and Tehsildar Offices in Surgana, Kalwan, Dindori, Chandwad, Peth, Trimbak, Nandgaon, Malegaon, Malegaonshahar, and Niphad
• Thane – Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, Palghar, Shahapur Tehsildar’s Office and District Collectorate
• Ahmednagar (Ahilyanagar) – Collectorate, Sangamner Provincial Office, Shevgaon Tehsil Office
• Nagpur – Samvidhan Chowk
• Wardha – Collector’s Office
• Amravati – Collector’s Office and Tehsildar’s Office
• Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – Divisional Commissioner’s Office
• Jalna – Collector’s Office and Partur Provincial Office
• Nanded, Satara, Sangli, Jalgaon, Solapur, Dhule, Chandrapur, Akola, Gondiya, Bhandara – Collector’s Offices
• Parbhani – Collector’s Office and Tehsil Offices at Shelu, Manawat, Pathri, and Purna
• Buldhana – Tehsildar Offices at Khamgaon, Malkapur, Sangrampur
• Gadchiroli – Tehsildar’s Office, Armori
• Raigad – Uran Tehsildar’s Office
• Kolhapur District – Protests coordinated by the Left Front at multiple locations: Collector’s Office, Ichalkaranji, Gadhinglaj, Kagal, Ajra, Radhanagari, Bhudargad, and Shahuwadi Tehsildar’s Offices

These demonstrations are expected to bring together thousands of protestors, including workers, farmers, students, lawyers, and community organisers. The agitation has witnessed an unprecedented unification of ideological and political forces.

Concerns about the bill

The scale and intensity of the agitation reflect the deep concern that the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 poses a grave threat to democratic freedoms and civil liberties. Although framed by the state as a public safety initiative, the bill has been widely criticised for granting the government extensive powers to enable surveillance, detain, and suppress dissent. Civil liberties groups, including CJP and other rights organisations, warn that the legislation empowers the state to criminalise peaceful protest and legitimate political expression under vague definitions of “unlawful activity.”

Incidentally, 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.

Problematic sections

The Advisory Board envisaged under Section 5 is also problematic. Unlike earlier legal frameworks which mandated sitting or retired High Court judges, this Bill allows for individuals merely qualified to be appointed judges, diluting judicial independence and creating scope for politically aligned appointments.

The Bill also provides for arbitrary seizure and eviction powers. Section 9 empowers District Magistrates or Police Commissioners to take over any notified area and evict its residents with little to no legal oversight. Section 10 further extends this to allow the confiscation of moveable property, which could be used to cripple individuals or organisations financially.

Perhaps most shockingly, Section 12 bars those detained under this law from seeking redress in district courts, forcing them to approach only the High Court or Supreme Court. This effectively removes a critical layer of legal protection for common citizens and disproportionately affects the poor and marginalised who may lack the means to access higher courts.

Finally, Sections 14 and 15 grant blanket immunity to police officers and bureaucrats, even in cases where they are found to have abused the law. This creates a culture of impunity, with no accountability for misuse or excesses.

A direct threat to Constitutional freedoms

Legal experts and rights groups assert that the MSPS Bill poses a serious threat to several constitutional rights, including:

• Article 19 – Freedom of speech, assembly, and association
• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• Article 14 – Right to equality before the law

By granting unchecked powers to the executive and removing essential judicial safeguards, the Bill represents an alarming shift toward authoritarian governance. The concerns raised go beyond legal technicalities—this is a battle to preserve the democratic ethos of Maharashtra and, by extension, India.

In response, this April 22 protest will serve as a powerful expression of public resistance. It is not just a symbolic protest, but a collective demand for the preservation of democracy, civil liberties, and constitutional values in Maharashtra. The coming together of political parties, civil society groups, and grassroots organisations is a rare but urgent show of unity against legislation that threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Related:

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