© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The stringent Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, which seeks “to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of left wing extremist organisations or similar organisations”, was passed by the state Assembly by a voice vote on Thursday.
The MSPS Bill has been debated widely ever since it was first introduced in the monsoon session of the state legislature last year by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who was Deputy Chief Minister at the time. The Opposition has raised concerns over the definition and interpretation of some of the terms and clauses in the Bill.
The Bill will now be introduced in the Legislative Council where it is expected to pass as well. It will then be sent to the Governor for his assent, following which it will become law.
The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill says the “menace of Naxalism is not only limited to remote areas of the Naxal affected states, but its presence is increasing in the urban areas also through the Naxal front organisations”.
According to the government, these “frontal organisations” provide logistics and safe refuge to armed Naxal cadres, and “existing laws are ineffective and inadequate to tackle this menace of Naxalism”.
To address this situation, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts and banned 48 Naxal frontal organisations, the Bill says.
The Bill gives the government the power to declare any suspect “organisation” as an “unlawful organisation”. It prescribes four offences for which an individual can be punished: (i) for being a member of an unlawful organisation, (ii) when not a member, for raising funds for an unlawful organisation, (iii) for managing or assisting in managing an unlawful organisation and, (iv) for committing an “unlawful activity”.
These offences carry jail terms of two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The offence relating to committing an unlawful activity carries the toughest punishment: imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
Offences under the proposed law are cognizable, which means arrests can be made without a warrant, and are non-bailable.
The Bill defines ‘unlawful activity’ as any action taken by an individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation or otherwise, which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility; or interferes with the maintenance of public order; or interferes with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force to any public servant, etc.
Indulging in or propagating, acts of violence, vandalism or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public; encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or collecting money or goods to carry out any of these unlawful activities are also included.
The Bill was first brought at the fag end of the 2024 Monsoon Session of the Assembly. The day after the Bill was tabled, the Assembly was prorogued and the Bill was not passed.
After the Assembly elections, following which Fadnavis became Chief Minister, the Bill was introduced in December last year. Fadnavis said that since many organisations had expressed apprehensions, the Bill would be sent to the joint select committee, and taken up again after all views and opinions had been considered.
The Joint Select Committee, comprising 25 members from both houses of the legislature, was headed by BJP leader and state Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule. The Committee held five meetings between March 4 and June 26 this year.
The Committee received more than 1,200 suggestions and objections from various stakeholders including opposition parties, NGOs, and citizens until the April 15 deadline. Some objections were raised about open-ended definitions of terms like “unlawful activity”; some like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) asked for the Bill be withdrawn in its entirety.
Eventually, the Committee made a total of three amendments to the original Bill.
🔴 The first amendment was regarding the “long title and preamble”. Initially the long title and preamble read: “A Bill to provide far more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organisations and for matters connected….,”.
The introduction to the amended Bill says that “since the Bill intends to destroy Urban Naxalism, the Committee opined to bring clarity on this aspect”, and changed unlawful activities of individuals and organisations to “unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations…”.
🔴 The second amendment was to clause 5(2) of the Bill, which says that “the Advisory Board shall consist of three persons who are or have been or qualified to be appointed as judge of the High Court. The Government shall appoint the members and designate one of them as the Chairperson.”
The Committee suggested that the Board shall consist of a chairperson who is or has been a judge of the High Court, and two members of which one shall be retired judge and another shall be a government pleader of the High court appointed by the state government.
🔴 The third amendment was made to clause 15(2). Instead of the acts defined under the Bill being investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector, it was suggested that it should be entrusted to officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
