Latest news with #MSPS
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
How Maharashtra ‘Urban Naxal' Bill targets Property Rights
Written by Prashant Randive In the name of public order and national security, the line between legitimate state interest and authoritarian overreach is often blurred. The recently enacted Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), 2024, is a troubling example of this phenomenon. While the State justified the bill as a necessary response to threats posed by 'unlawful organisations', several provisions, particularly those that empower police to seal, seize or restrict the use of private property, pose a grave challenge to the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Article 300A of the Constitution stipulates that 'No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.' Though the framers left it to the legislature to define the contours of the lawful deprivation, Indian courts have consistently held that this power must be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily and with due process. Yet, Sections 9 and 10 of the new law allow the police, with prior approval of the commissioner or District Magistrate, to prohibit the use of any premises allegedly linked to unlawful activity. The law authorises eviction, sealing, and restriction of use without prior judicial oversight, without compensation, and crucially, without providing the occupant or owner a chance to be heard beforehand. In the landmark judgement K T Plantation Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka (2011), the Supreme Court laid down the core principles that must guide deprivation of property by the state. Most notably, the Court held that there must be a legitimate public purpose. Secondly, there must be fairness and, in most cases, compensation. Finally, the law must be subject to judicial scrutiny for reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and proportionality. In the case of the MSPS 2024, all three constitutional safeguards appear to be compromised. First, it allows the state to seal or restrict the use of property merely based on the 'belief' of association with an unlawful organisation. This does not meet the constitutionality of the required threshold of a clearly defined public purpose. A blanket seizure of homes, businesses, or rented premises based on such vague suspicion, without establishing direct and deliberate involvement in unlawful activity, cannot be justified as serving a proportionate or legitimate public end. The concept of guilt by association dilutes the principle of individual responsibility and turns property holders into collateral damage in a scrutiny operation. Second, the law failed to provide for any form of compensation to those whose properties are sealed or rendered unusable, often with serious livelihood consequences. While Article 300A does not mandate compensation in every instance, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is often an inherent component of lawful deprivation, especially when action causes material harm. In the absence of compensation and with no clear path to restitution, the law violates both the spirit and substance of the Constitution's property protections. Third, and most dangerously, the law bypasses the prior judicial oversight. The decision to seal, evict or restrict property use is taken by police with approval from the Commissioner or District Magistrate, but not a judicial authority. Review mechanisms are post-facto, limited, and internal to the executive. The Supreme Court in K T Plantation explicitly stated that such statutes must be amenable to judicial review, which implies that they must be designed in a way that embeds procedural fairness and provides a genuine avenue for redress, without preventive remedies or an impartial tribunal, affected citizens are left vulnerable to arbitrary state action. The failure of the Act to meet these constitutional benchmarks of public purpose, just procedure and proportionality renders its property-related provision deeply problematic. Far from being an exception in extraordinary circumstances, the law risks becoming a template for routine and unchecked executive overreach, with ordinary citizens paying the price through the loss of homes, shops and shelters. While countering extremist threats, a democratic state must not wield the weapon of national security in a manner that tramples civil liberties. Laws targeting unlawful associations must not become tools for harassment, chilling dissent, or arbitrary seizure of private spaces. Unfortunately, the MSPS 2024 resurrects colonial impulses of the idea that executive suspicion is sufficient to invade homes, shutter businesses, and override property rights. In doing so, it inverts the constitutional promise from the state that serves its people to one that surveils and punishes without accountability. If left unchecked, such laws may set a dangerous precedent across states, normalising a 'guilt by association' doctrine with wide-ranging implications not just for activists and dissenters but also for ordinary citizens whose homes, hostels, and businesses could fall victim to vague suspicions. The Right to Property may no longer be 'fundamental', but it is still the foundation to liberty, livelihood and dignity. Any law that seeks to erode it must be subjected to the highest standards of constitutional scrutiny. The act, in its current form, fails that test. The writer is an independent researcher and development practitioner working with Savitribai Phule Resource Centre
The Hindu
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
BJP Brings in ‘Security' Law That Could Silence Dissent in Maharashtra
Published : Jul 16, 2025 07:36 IST - 5 MINS READ Days after the ruling BJP at the Centre and in Maharashtra observed the 50th anniversary of the Emergency and the curtailment of freedoms it entailed, the Maha Yuti government, led by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024, by voice vote in the Legislative Assembly on July 10. The irony is stark: the same party that declared June 25 as 'Constitution Murder Day' now wields a law that critics describe as the gravest threat to freedom of expression in Maharashtra. While tabling the Bill, Fadnavis warned of 'urban Maoist networks' brainwashing youth, professionals, and civil servants. 'Maoists were trying to brainwash the youth of the urban areas and make them stand up against the democratic system of the country,' he said. The statement of objects claims that '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'. The MSPS Bill empowers the State government to declare any suspect 'organisation' as an 'unlawful organisation'. Four offences can trigger action: membership of such organisations, fundraising on their behalf, managing or assisting them, and committing unlawful activities. Also Read | Why Maharashtra withdrew its Hindi language mandate in schools Punishments range from two to seven years' imprisonment and fines from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. These offences are cognisable and non-bailable, allowing arrest without a warrant. The Bill defines 'unlawful activity' broadly as any act that 'constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity' or interferes 'with the administration of law'. The definition potentially encompasses satyagraha, civil disobedience, and peaceful protests—constitutionally protected forms of democratic expression. The Bill's journey First introduced during the 2024 monsoon session by then Deputy Chief Minister Fadnavis, the Bill was revived after the Maha Yuti returned to power in November 2024. A joint select committee, headed by Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule, held five meetings between March 4 and June 26 and received over 12,500 suggestions and objections. Civil society groups, including the Maharashtra chapter of the Bharat Jodo Abhiyan and the People's Union for Civil Liberties, urged that the Bill be withdrawn entirely. Others questioned its intent, calling it a precursor to authoritarianism. The committee recommended three amendments: changing the title to specify 'Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations'; mandating an advisory board comprising three High Court judges or qualified persons; and raising the rank of the investigating officer from sub-inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police. Pushback for the Bill In the Assembly, only CPI(M) MLA Vinod Nikole opposed the Bill outright, calling it 'draconian'. Rohit Pawar of the NCP (Sharad Pawar) expressed concern over its potential misuse. Fadnavis assured that political and social activists would not be targeted, and that the right to protest would remain protected. Congress leader Nitin Raut referred to the controversial Bhima Koregaon case of 2018, in which several people were arrested under the 'urban naxal' label. Despite this, the Opposition offered little resistance during the Assembly proceedings. The silence shocked civil society activists who had been protesting the Bill for over a year. Uddhav Thackeray and senior Congress leaders had attended a June 28 rally in Mumbai against the Bill. But it was only when the legislation reached the Legislative Council that Congress and Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) actively objected. Congress leaders Satej Patil and Abhijit Vanjari condemned the Bill as an assault on democratic rights. Shiv Sena (UBT) MLC Anil Parab gave a detailed speech highlighting its flaws. Vanjari questioned why only Left-wing extremism was targeted, while Right-wing extremism was ignored. Thackeray labelled it 'not Jan Suraksha but BJP Suraksha Bill'. Despite objections, the Bill was passed owing to the government's numerical strength in both Houses. Opposition members of the Council submitted an eight-page memorandum to the Governor urging him to withhold assent. The urban naxal propaganda machine The 'urban naxal' narrative has long been promoted by BJP sympathisers and Right-wing ideologues. Recent protests—against the CAA-NRC (Citizenship (Amendment) Act-National Register of Citizens), the farm laws, and others—were also branded 'Urban Naxal' conspiracies. The Bhima Koregaon case is the most cited example. Sixteen individuals, including political scientist Anand Teltumbde, activist Sudha Bharadwaj, and 84-year-old Father Stan Swamy, were arrested. Swamy died in custody on July 5, 2021, after being repeatedly denied bail despite suffering from Parkinson's disease. Another example is that of Professor G.N. Saibaba, a Delhi University academic and human rights activist, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court. He was acquitted twice by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court—in October 2022 and March 2024—after spending nearly a decade in jail. Saibaba died on October 12, 2024, while undergoing treatment in Hyderabad. Politics over law Several existing laws already address unlawful activities. Congress MLC Abhijit Vanjari questioned the rationale behind the MSPS Bill: 'The Union Home Minister claims that the Naxal movement is nearly defeated, with only 28 per cent remaining. If true, under which law has this been achieved?' Also Read | As Maharashtra waits to be counted, politics is already doing the math Fadnavis, however, has pushed forward with legislation targeting alleged urban maoists. Sanjay M.G. of the National Alliance for People's Movements said, 'This law is to suppress future protests against the loot of India. The BJP's development model is being resisted—whether it is the redevelopment of Dharavi or mineral exploitation in Vidarbha. People will not stay silent, so this law is meant to silence them.' Vivek Korde, a senior social activist, cited a 2024 report by the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate, which showed that Maharashtra leads in hate speech cases, over 90 per cent of which involve Right-wing leaders. 'If Fadnavis truly cared about law and order, he would legislate against hate speech and violence,' he said. Civil society is planning large-scale protests. 'We are organising protest programmes across Maharashtra,' said Ulka Mahajan of Bharat Jodo Abhiyan. 'This is clearly an anti-people Bill aimed at stopping people from asserting their rights.' Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi leader Prakash Ambedkar announced plans to challenge the law in court. 'This law is draconian and unconstitutional. We are going to fight it legally,' he said. Maharashtra has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons—rampant corruption, MLA hooliganism, violent language protests, and crumbling infrastructure. The passage of the law marks yet another step in the State's steady descent.
The Hindu
12-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Prakash Ambedkar to move court against public security Bill
Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) founder and president Prakash Ambedkar will move court against the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), citing that the Bill is 'draconian' and will 'destroy the Phule-Shahu-Ambedkar spirit' and ideology of Maharashtra. The former MP called the Bill unconstitutional, vaguely defined, and inherently prone to misuse. Maharashtra Assembly on Thursday passed the MSPS Bill intending to prevent the 'unlawful activities of left-wing extremist organisations. However, Opposition parties opposed it citing ambiguity. Mr. Ambedkar criticised the Opposition for letting the Bill pass in the Assembly without any contention. In April, Mr. Ambedkar had written a nine-page letter to Chandrashekhar Bawankhule, chairperson, Joint Select Committee on MSPS Bill, and called for its immediate withdrawal. The letter mentioned that under the guise of addressing 'Naxalism', it will be used to silence those who voice opposition to State policies or raise valid concerns about potential wrongdoings. 'The Bill, if enacted into a law, will legitimise the criminalisation of citizens, organisations, policy and political actors, who dissent, protest, revolt and express their opposition against the policies of the government,' he posted on X.
Indian Express
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why Maharashtra ‘urban Naxal' Bill's smooth sailing has put MVA in the dock
The smooth passage of the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill in the state Legislative Assembly as well as the Council seems to have exposed the lack of coordination and political will among the Opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance against the Mahayuti government led by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. On Thursday, the MSPS Bill, which seeks 'effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left-wing extremist organisations', was passed in the Assembly by a voice vote. The Bill sailed through the Lower House amid the Opposition's concerns over the definition and interpretation of some of its terms and clauses. The only dissenting note came from lone CPI(M) MLA Vinod Nikole. With 235 MLAs in the 288-member Assembly, the BJP-led Mahayuti holds an absolute majority in the House. Yet, the 53 MLAs representing the MVA missed the opportunity to put up a spirited fight, failing even to express their dissent in the Assembly during the passage of the Bill. Twenty-four hours later, the Bill was also passed by the state Legislative Council amid an Opposition walkout. In what appeared to be a course correction, the Opposition in the Upper House submitted a note of dissent against the Bill to Chairperson Ram Shinde. But this only exemplified the Opposition's lack of a uniform strategy on a crucial legislation like this, which has been dubbed a Bill against 'urban Naxalism'. Fadnavis put forth his views in favour of the Bill in the Assembly. 'The legislation is against those Left-wing extremist organisations, which are provoking people for armed revolt to demolish democracy, Parliament and institutions,' he said. 'There are six such organisations that have been banned in other states operating in Maharashtra. In total, there are 64 outfits, which are, under the guise of people's socio-economic uplift, engaged in destructive and dangerous unlawful activities.' With the Opposition failing to put the government under pressure over the MSPS Bill, what remains to be seen now is how the protest against the legislation would play out on the streets. To begin with, a delegation of the Opposition leaders is planning to head to the Raj Bhavan to convey their concerns to Governor C P Radhakrishnan next week. The MVA's constituents – including the Congress, NCP (SP) and Shiv Sena (UBT) – also plan to reach out to various Left organisations and launch a statewide campaign against the government. Whether the Opposition could successfully mobilise mass support remains to be seen. NCP (SP) leader Jayant Patil said, 'We were members of the Joint Select Committee and strongly voiced our concerns. But its last meeting's date change took many of us off guard. We had our scheduled programmes… Yet, we brought to their notice our concern.' The Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee comprising members of both the Mahayuti and MVA after it was introduced in the Assembly during last year's monsoon session. Although the panel received 12,000 suggestions and objections from various quarters, it finally recommended only three changes to the Bill. In a candid admission, a senior Congress leader and former minister lamented, 'There is no unity within the MVA. Each party is doing what it feels is right. In the Assembly, had we collectively registered our dissent, it would have given us the moral standing to question the government's intention behind such legislation.' However, Shiv Sena (UBT) president Uddhav Thackeray, who is an MLC, argued, 'The battle is far from over. We support the government in the fight against Naxalism and terrorism. But if the government, through this legislation, is going to abuse power to harass opponents, it is unacceptable.' Uddhav also said, 'If they (government) bulldoze a legislation through majority support on the floor of the House, we will exercise our rights to take the fight to the people.' Notably, it was under the Opposition's pressure, primarily by Uddhav and his cousin Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), that the Fadnavis government withdrew its controversial government resolutions (GRs) inducting Hindi in primary schools as part of the three-language policy. However, in the case of the GRs, it was the Thackerays' emotive pitch for the Marathi unity and pride that likely forced the government's hand. As regards the MSPS Bill, the Opposition reckons that the legislation, when enforced, could lead to a 'misuse of power against political rivals', and create a political environment in which anybody questioning the government could be tagged an 'urban Naxal' and face government action. To substantiate their apprehensions, Opposition leaders point to the absence of terms 'terror' or 'Naxal' in the legislation. Instead, it uses the terms 'Left-wing extremist' and 'frontal organisations'. Uddhav said, 'There is no mention of the words 'Naxal' or 'terror'… We are not against the fight against Naxal or terrorism, but if the government uses its majority rule to silence critics, we are not going to accept it.' In the past, legislation like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) were misused by those in power to arrest and imprison political opponents. 'Similarly, the Fadnavis government will misuse the MSPS legislation against its opponents,' the Sena (UBT) chief alleged. Fadnavis, however, said in the Assembly that the legislation is directed at tackling the Left-wing extremist organisations, assuring that it was not intended to target the Left or any other political opponents. After passage in the Assembly and Council, the MSPS Bill will be referred to the Governor for assent, following which it will come into effect as a law. Maharashtra would be the fifth state to pass such a public security Bill after Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Chhattisgarh.
Hans India
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
SC/ST Atrocity case against SI demanded
Ongole: Dalit organisations, including Madiga Samkshema Porata Samithi, Dalit Hakkula Porata Samithi, and others, demanded that the government register an SC/ST Atrocity Case against the suspended Excise SI Simon, for intimidating, abusing based on caste, and using derogatory language against Excise CI Talluri Aruna Kumari. MSPS state president Kommu Sujan Madiga, DHPS state president Neelam Nagendra Rao, and others explained that Simon, who is working as an SI in the excise department at Podili, abused his woman superior officer, CI Talluri Aruna Kumari, based on caste, intimidated her, and used foul language against her. They said that they submitted a complaint on the incident to the District Prohibition and Excise Officer Ayesha Begum, with a request for action against the officer, and booking a case for his abusive behaviour against a Dalit officer. The Dalit leaders thanked the government for suspending Simon from duties after the preliminary inquiry and demanded the registration of the SC/ST Atrocity case against the suspended officer, as criminal charges are necessary to prevent similar incidents. The Dalit leaders made it clear that they will continue to monitor the case and expect the government to register a criminal case under the SC/ST Atrocity Act, complete a departmental inquiry, and implement measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
