“These people want to spread Naxalism not only in jungle but in urban pockets also. In Maharashtra, there are as many as 64 such organisations. Four of them are banned in other states, but are operating in Maharashtra,” he said. “Our state has become a haven for Naxalism.”
Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule had presented the Joint Select Committee’s report on the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, in the state Legislative Assembly Wednesday, with certain amendments.
One of the major concerns regarding the Bill was whether it would target political parties. However, Bawankule, who heads the committee, clarified while tabling the report in the Assembly that it will not target any political organizations. “We have brought clarity to the Bill, which aims to tackle the illegal activities of extreme Left-minded individuals and organisations,” he said in the assembly. ThePrint has accessed a copy of the report.
He added that the committee had met five times since December, when it was formed, and received over 12,500 suggestions, which came from public domain.
The controversial term “urban Naxal”, he said, has been replaced with “extreme Left-wing ideology”.
As per the new changes, a decision by an advisory board is now mandatory before declaring any organisation unlawful. This three-member advisory board will include a sitting or retired High Court judge, along with district magistrates or government pleaders.
Another key change relates to the rank of the investigating officer. Earlier, in the bill, an officer of the rank of sub-inspector would investigate the offence. But now, the investigating officer would be of the rank of superintendent of police.
Bawankule said, “The suggestions of the opposition members in the joint select committee were also accepted. The government wants the Bill to be passed as it intends to prevent youth from being influenced by the Naxalite movement.”
The controversial Bill was first introduced during the monsoon session in July 2024, when the Mahayuti government was led by Eknath Shinde. However, it was not passed at the time. Later that year, after Devendra Fadnavis became Chief Minister in December, the Bill was reintroduced during the winter session of the Assembly and subsequently referred to the Joint Select Committee.
The opposition is treading cautiously, expressing hope that the final version of the Bill will be brought up for discussion.
“I agree that government’s stand on certain things has changed. For example, they have been talking about urban Naxal, but in my knowledge, ‘urban Naxal’ word is removed from the final draft of the bill,” said Jitendra Awhad, NCP(SP) MLA, who is also a part of the committee.
“But we still object to certain things in the Bill. Whoever agrees or not, Left ideology exists in the country just like how Right ideology exists. Just because you don’t agree with it, you are trying to put those with Left ideology behind bars, this is not good,” Awhad added.
Also read: Jail term for ‘sympathisers’, power to seize property — what Maharashtra’s Public Security Bill says
Opposition raises questions
Although opposition members were part of the joint committee, they still raised questions to it on the floor of the House.
Jayant Patil of the NCP (SP), who was a member of the committee, acknowledged that since some opposition members were involved in its deliberations, they could not justifiably raise objections later, but added: “Some points were not considered by the government in the final draft. The last meeting was held on 26 June, but since the Business Advisory Committee meeting was scheduled at the same time, we couldn’t attend. If what the Chief Minister said is true—that the intent is to act against Naxalism—then at the same time, people are concerned that if ‘urban Naxalism’ is spreading, this law should not be misused.”
His party colleague Rohit Pawar, meanwhile, came out strongly against this Bill.
He asked how many of the roughly 12,000 suggestions submitted by the public were actually accepted.
There is no data on deletion or alterations. Very few changes in the Bill, he said. “Some definitions are vague. There is no clarity, for example, on the term ‘Left-wing extremism’. This looks like a target on Left wing ideology. If we are talking about Naxalism, it needs to be addressed that way. Just like Left wing extremism, even Right-wing extremism is wrong,” he added.
Congress MLA Nitin Raut echoed the fear.
“It feels like this is an attack on fundamental freedom. This feels like any protest can be branded as Naxalism.”
He gave the example of the Bhima Koregaon arrests. “Even Dalit community is fearing protests that regularly happen, will those also be banned under this Bill?” Raut asked.
Shiv Sena UBT MLA Varun Sardesai spoke about the definitions of organisation and unlawful activity. “I just want to say one thing—there’s a big question mark over some definitions. For instance, the term ‘unlawful activity’ as defined in Clause 2. I want to raise a few examples based on that. In every institution, there are organisations with Left-wing ideology. They engage in activism too. If these student bodies hold protests, will this Bill be invoked against them? Secondly, on the issue of Hindi imposition, if an organisation protests against the law, then according to this clause, they would be considered guilty,” he said.
He even raised questions on the advisory board and its members.
The CPI MLA from Dahanu Vinod Bhiva Nikole, however, opposed the bill.
Coming from a Left-wing party, he said, “This bill is unconstitutional and against the fundamental right. Many Left-wing organisations take out protests. Be it anganwadi workers, or farmers long march, will this also be banned now in future because of this law?”
Why the bill is controversial
When the Bill was reintroduced by Fadnavis in December, he said the proposed law is not aimed at suppressing genuine dissenting voices, but to close down the dens of “urban Naxals”.
“Naxalism is not restricted to remote rural parts alone, but frontal organisations have come up in urban areas as well which work towards creating distrust about the country and its institutions,” Fadnavis had said. “Even the anti-Naxal squads in Maharashtra wanted such a law to stop the activities of urban Naxals. This proposed law is not aimed at suppressing genuine dissenting voices, but to close down the dens of urban Naxals,” he said.
This had created a huge uproar, with the opposition questioning the need for a separate bill when laws like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) exist to curb Naxalism.
However, the government defended its move by saying that even states like Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts for effective prevention of unlawful activities, and banned 48 frontal organisations.
Some of the sections in the Bill were seen as controversial, too. For instance, jail term even for those who aren’t members of “unlawful organisation” but “contribute/ receive/solicit any contribution or aid” or “harbour” members
Some provisions in the Bill have drawn criticism for being controversial. For instance, it proposes jail terms not only for members of an “unlawful organisation” but also for those who “contribute, receive, or solicit any contribution or aid,” or who “harbour” its members.
The section in the Bill that allows any organisation to be deemed unlawful by an advisory board set up by the government has now been revised. The Bill states, “Where the government is satisfied after such enquiry as it may think fit, that any moneys, securities or other assets are being used or intended to be used for the purpose of an unlawful organisation, the government may… declare such moneys, securities or other assets… to be forfeited to the government.”
It adds, “Whoever is a member of an unlawful organisation or takes part in meetings or activities of any such organisation or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose of any such organisation” will be punished with a jail term extending up to 3 years and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh. This has not yet changed.
Those not a member of the unlawful organisation in any manner but who “contributes or receives or solicits any contribution or aid for such organisation or harbours any member of such organisation” will be punished with imprisonment up to two years and be liable for a fine of up to Rs 2 lakh.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: ‘Old wine in new bottle?’ What is Maharashtra’s proposed law to tackle ‘urban naxalism’