Open to making amendments if the law is misused: Minister Yogesh Kadam on the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill

Indian Express

7 days ago

The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, which seeks 'to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of left wing extremist organisations', was recently passed by both the Maharashtra Assembly and the Legislative Council through a voice vote. The Bill has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition over 'vague definitions' and 'potential misuse'.
In an interview with The Indian Express, Yogesh Kadam, Minister of State (MoS) for Home, who tabled the Bill in the Legislative Council, defended its provisions and addressed concerns around its implementation. Excerpts from the interview:
Q. The Opposition alleges this law is aimed at stifling protest and dissent. How do you respond?
Yogesh Kadam: That is not the intention at all. The Bill clearly targets frontal organisations linked to Maoist groups. The concern raised is – 'what if a labour union protests and something unlawful happens? Will they be prosecuted under this Act?' The answer is no. A protester raising a voice for a cause will not be affected. The Bill defines 'unlawful activity' specifically – it refers to actions carried out by or in support of Maoist-linked organisations by anyone who is actively involved or directly supports them.
Q. But the Opposition argues that terms like 'illegal activity', 'left wing', 'extremism', or 'support' are vague and can be misused.
Kadam: Maoists have evolved. Their presence is no longer confined to jungles. Urban Naxals work under various covers – students, teachers, farmers, NGO workers. Their methods are deceptive and difficult to pin down. That's why the definitions in the Bill reflect this broad and changing modus operandi. These terms haven't been randomly inserted – they are based on past patterns and intelligence inputs.
Urban Naxals operate covertly. We have seen this with Delhi University's former professor G N Saibaba, and others like Basava Raju, a labour leader later found with Maoists in the forest.
Their first tool is agitation – creating unrest to destabilise elected governments. But not all agitations are to suspected. For example, if Konkan farmers protest against a mining project, that's their right. What matters is intent. This Act is about intent. If someone is protesting for their livelihood or rights, that's their constitutional right. But if an organisation uses that protest as a cover for Maoist activity, this law will come into play.
Q: The state government has said 64 urban Naxal-linked organisations are active in Maharashtra. Are they identified already?
Kadam: Yes, they have been identified, and once the Act is notified and enforced, action will be initiated as per the provisions.
Q: The government claims that the MSPS Bill will be used only against organisations, but the legislation has provisions to prosecute individuals; isn't this a contradiction?
Kadam: If someone is directly supporting a banned Maoist-linked group – say by funding it or helping its operations, or is a member of the organisation, then that individual can be prosecuted. But only when clear, proven links are established. The focus remains on direct involvement… Remember, organisations are made up of individuals. If someone is knowingly aiding a banned Maoist group, the law will apply. But that involvement must be proven with evidence.
Q: How will the government distinguish between a genuine protest and one with Maoist involvement?
Kadam: This Bill will not be invoked if there is just a protest. It comes into effect only if there is a link to an organisation identified as Maoist-aligned. If a protest involves such links, we will act – but with due process.
The three-member advisory board – comprising a retired district judge, a serving or retired high court judge, and a public prosecutor – will examine all evidence before any organisation is banned or any individual prosecuted.
The board will scrutinise the evidence, verify the organisation's link to Maoist activity, and only then can a ban or prosecution proceed. Evidence is key.
Q: But the Bill allows non-bailable offences and arrest without warrant. Isn't that a recipe for misuse? What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse by the police?
Kadam: The police can't arbitrarily act under this law. The authority to ban an organisation lies with the three-member advisory board. No organisation or individual can be targeted without evidence, and that evidence will have to stand in court. There is absolutely no scope for arbitrary arrest.
The provisions come into force only after an organisation is officially banned. And before a ban is imposed, the board must approve it based on submitted evidence.
Q: What if misuse does happen – will the government consider amending the law?
Kadam: Of course. Every law evolves and can be amended. Even the Right To Information (RTI) Act has seen amendments. If, after enforcement, we see any genuine misuse or receive constructive suggestions, we are open to making changes through amendments to its provisions. In fact, if needed, we can amend this law in this very session itself. There's always scope for revision if there is a good suggestion. We are not rigid.
Q: Can you explain the scope and function of the three-member advisory board?
Kadam: Once the government identifies an organisation and submits evidence of its Maoist links, this board will examine all the material. We have to submit documentary proof, intelligence reports, and establish links to Maoist activity.
The organisation in question can also present its defence. If the board is not convinced, the ban won't go through. That's our safeguard against arbitrary action. It's a transparent process.
Q: The Opposition has demanded that the Opposition leader be added to this board for checks and balances. Why not?
Kadam: There are no politicians on the board – neither from the ruling side nor the Opposition. It consists only of legal professionals – judges and lawyers – to ensure neutrality.
In fact, other states that have similar Acts – like Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Telangana – don't even have such a board. They ban organisations outright.
Q. Why does the Bill only cover left-wing extremism? Aren't right-wing extremist organisations also active in Maharashtra?
Kadam: Left-wing extremism refers specifically to Maoist and Naxal movements that openly reject the Indian Constitution and operate with their own parallel ideology and constitution. This term was coined by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2007. They reject India's Constitution entirely and aim to overthrow the state.
Right-wing extremism, if it involves violence or illegal acts, is already covered under other stringent laws like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Action has been taken in cases of right-wing violence, be it in the Malegaon bomb blasts case or other cases. But unlike Maoists, right-wing groups do not reject India's Constitution or seek its overthrow.
Q: Journalists meet everyone. Could they be implicated for simply interviewing or covering a news story?
Kadam: Absolutely not. Meeting someone for information or interviews does not qualify as involvement. The law only applies to those actively helping Maoist organisations – whether by spying, passing information, or offering logistical support. No journalist, politician, or citizen will be targeted unfairly. That's what the advisory board safeguards against.
But if someone – whether journalist, politician, or citizen – deliberately helps a banned organisation, provides internal information, or aids operations, then that's a different matter. The law targets active support, not association or conversation.