The Maharashtra legislature’s joint select committee has made a series of changes to the controversial Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, following months of sustained pushback from civil liberties groups, activists, and opposition parties. As per a report of the Hindustan Times, while the revised draft limits the bill’s applicability to organisations and narrows the scope of targeted activities, core concerns about the law’s intent and potential for abuse remain largely intact.
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?
Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties