Latest news with #MaharashtraAssembly
The Hindu
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is Maharashtra's new security Bill?
The story so far: The Maharashtra Legislature passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill or a 'Bill to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations', during the recent monsoon session of the Maharashtra Assembly. The Bill has been termed as 'oppressive, ambiguous and open to misuse' by opposition leaders. What is the Bill? The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill was brought in to counter 'urban Naxalism', as per the government of Maharashtra. The Bill states 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 frontal organisations. The spread of active frontal organisations of the Naxal groups gives constant and effective support in terms of logistics and safe refuge to their armed cadres. The seized literature of Naxals shows 'safe houses' and 'urban dens' of the Maoist network in the cities of the State of Maharashtra.' The Maharashtra government claims that the State has become a safe haven for 'urban Naxal' organisations. It has said that over 60 such organisations exist in Maharashtra, and that current laws are ineffective against them. However, civil rights activists say that the State government has not yet made public the list of these organisations, despite repeated requests. They have alleged that the Bill has been brought about to control left-wing organisations and civil rights activists who had rallied against the BJP in the 2024 Parliamentary elections. What about other States? Maharashtra is the fifth State after Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha to enact a Public Security Act 'for more effective prevention of unlawful activities of such organisations.' The government has claimed that the other States have banned 48 frontal organisations under similar laws. But civil rights activists contend that the Public Security Acts in other States were brought in before the promulgation of more stringent pieces of legislation like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They said that the Maharashtra government itself has claimed to have curbed left-wing armed extremists to only two districts of the State, with the help of currently existing laws, thus questioning the need for such a stringent Act at this time. When was the Bill introduced? The Bill was first introduced by the earlier Mahayuti government at the fag end of the monsoon session of Maharashtra Assembly in 2024. The State elections were held thereafter, and the BJP came back to power along with its allies with a thumping majority. The new government revived the Bill and introduced it during the winter session of the Maharashtra Assembly on December 20, 2024. A day later, a joint committee of members from both the Houses was formed to scrutinise the Bill. The committee received over 12,500 suggestions and objections but made only three amendments to the draft Bill. The activists have called the three changes 'minor'. After being cleared by the joint committee, the Bill was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on July 10. Only the Communist Party of India (Marxist) opposed the Bill. Other opposition parties raised objections, but did not oppose the Bill, which was passed by a majority by a voice vote. Two delegations have since met the Governor requesting him to not sign the Bill and send it back to the Legislature instead. What are the objections to the Bill? The opposition has said that the Bill empowers the government to declare organisations 'illegal' without due process; allows suppression of facts in 'public interest'; allows the government to extend ban on an organisation without any limit on the duration; has the potential to criminalise regular opposition under an ambiguous definition of 'illegal activity'; excludes lower courts from jurisdiction, effectively closing off easy judicial remedies; provides full protection to State officials acting in 'good faith'; and creates grounds for ideologically motivated action against opposition groups, activists and movements. The government has said that democratic and peaceful protests as well as journalists will not come under the Bill's ambit, but the ambiguity in the Bill has given rise to fear that it might be used against farmers' organisations, students' groups, and civil rights groups under the label of 'threat to public order'. For example, Section 2(f) of the Bill criminalises speech (spoken or written), signs, gestures or visual representations which 'tend to interfere' with public order or 'cause concern'. The opposition has said that such a provision allows authorities to criminalise expression, assembly, criticism, ridicule and association merely by indicating that they pose a potential threat. There is no requirement of actual violence, immediate harm or intent. What next? The Bill will become a law once the Governor gives his assent to it. It has been passed by both the Houses and has been sent to him. Meanwhile, civil rights activists and political parties have said they will continue to protest against the Bill and will approach the court against it.
NDTV
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Rummy-Playing Minister's Birthday Wish For Ajit Pawar Is 'Get Out Of Jail' Card?
Mumbai: Caught playing cards in the Maharashtra Assembly while it was in session, Agriculture Minister Manikrao Kokate appeared to be currying favour with Nationalist Congress Party boss and Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, with a grand 'happy birthday' message Tuesday morning. 'Happy birthday, dada (as Mr Pawar is referred to within his party)' was written across 11 acres of agricultural land within the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation area. The message was etched across a field in Mr Kokate's Sinnar constituency. And, of course, also featured a large photograph of the birthday boy, i.e., Mr Pawar. Reports said eight people, led by artists Mangesh Nipanikar and Kshipra Mankar, and two tractors worked 10 hours a day for six days to prepare the outlandish message. Will the message have the effect Mr Kokate wants? That is unclear. What is clear is that Ajit Pawar is under pressure to sack his minister, with the opposition having targeted his NCP and the ruling alliance led by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Mr Pawar is also under pressure, sources told NDTV, from within that ruling alliance. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis - already under fire for failing to stem violent conduct by goons with political backing in the Marathi language row - criticised Mr Kokate's conduct. Sources told NDTV other members of the BJP and the third member of the Mahayuti bloc, Eknath Shinde's Shiv Sena, have also criticised the Agriculture Minister's actions, and believe a "strong public message" is necessary for the ruling alliance to retain credibility with the public. The NCP has yet to decide on Mr Kokate's fate. Meanwhile, the card-playing minister has, unsurprisingly, played down the row, declaring this a "small issue" and defended himself by claiming he wasn't actually playing for money. "... why did (this issue) get stretched out so much? You can't play online rummy if your phone and bank account are not linked... I will give my details and everyone can check," he said, declaring also he would take legal action against those who said he played cards in the House. VIDEO | Maharashtra Minister Caught Playing Rummy In Assembly. His Defence Earlier Mr Kokate claimed he wasn't actually playing the game and that it "got downloaded on my phone". He said he had been trying to "skip it" and accused the opposition of targeting him with an incomplete clip, "I tried twice (but) didn't know how... but next second, I skipped it." The video of Mr Kokata playing (or trying to skip) the game, depending on which protestation is accepted, has been severely criticised by the opposition, with NCP patriarch Sharad Pawar's grandnephew, Rohit Pawar, leading the charge. In a post on X Mr Pawar said: "Will these misguided ministers and the government ever hear the desperate plea of farmers demanding crop insurance, loan waivers, and price support?" #राजीनामा_द्यावाच_लागेल! सभागृहाचं कामकाज संपलं होतं हे कृषिमंत्री महोदयांचं विधान धडधडीत खोटं आहे. उलट विकासाच्या मूळ प्रवाहापासून दूर असलेल्या आदिवासी बांधवांना दुधाळ जनावरं देण्याच्या अत्यंत महत्त्वाच्या विषयावर सभागृहात चर्चा सुरु होती, पण 'ओसाड गावच्या पाटलांना' या चर्चेत… — Rohit Pawar (@RRPSpeaks) July 22, 2025 That Rohit Pawar is fronting the opposition attack on this issue is significant, given Ajit Pawar led rebel NCP MLAs out of the then-Sharad Pawar-ruled party in 2023 and delivered them to the BJP's camp. That strengthened the saffron party's control of the Maharashtra government. Rohit Pawar doubled down on his criticism this morning, slamming Mr Kokate for a "blatantly false" statement that the House was not in session when he was caught playing cards. "On the contrary, a discussion was underway on the extremely important issue of providing milch animals to tribal brethren who are far from the mainstream of development..." Mr Pawar also questioned Mr Kokate's other claim - that he was trying to "skip the game". "... tell me, which advertisement for a card game takes 42 seconds to skip?" he asked as he repeated the opposition's demand for the Agriculture Minister to stand down.
Time of India
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'No celebrations' on Devendra Fadnavis' birthday, contribute more to CM relief fund: BJP
Ahead of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis 's birthday, which is on July 22, the Bharatiya Janata Party office secretary Mukund Kulkarni, informed that the BJP has appealed to all party leaders and workers not to put up hoardings, banners and publish advertisements in newspapers or on Television. "If anyone puts up hoardings, banners or advertisements, the party will take serious disciplinary action against them. Therefore, these instructions should be strictly followed. The party is also appealing to anyone who wants to contribute to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund," informed the BJP State Office. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Simultaneously, on Saturday, refuting the recent altercation between BJP MLA Gopichand Padalkar and National Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar (NCP-SCP) MLA Jitendra Awhad outside the Maharashtra Assembly , Chief Minister Fadnavis said that the behaviour of both the MLAs was not acceptable and they both behaved like school kids. Addressing a press conference, Fadnavis said, "We have condemned the incident. The behaviour of both MLAs was not acceptable. They behaved like school kids. We are hurt by the incident and will make sure it doesn't happen again." Fadnavis addressed the media following the conclusion of the Monsoon session of the Maharashtra Assembly, highlighting the passage of 16 significant bills and decisions, including the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill . Live Events The monsoon session of the Maharashtra Assembly was held from June 30 to July 18. Speaking at a press conference, Fadnavis noted that the Assembly session saw the passage of several key legislations. He said, "In the Assembly Session, important Bills, supplementary demands and important decisions were taken. A total of 16 Bills were passed. The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, an important Bill, was also passed. We got the cooperation of the Opposition too for the Bill, but later there was pressure on them, that's why they opposed it outside the House."
India Today
18-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Maharashtra assembly brawl: Two sent to police custody till July 21
A magistrate court in Mumbai on Friday remanded two men arrested in connection with the Maharashtra Assembly ruckus to police custody till July two accused – Sarjerao Baban Takle, an activist associated with Gopichand Padalkar, and Nitin Hindurao Deshmukh, linked to NCP(SP) MLA Jitendra Awhad – were arrested on Thursday following a violent altercation between party workers inside the assemblyadvertisementThe investigating officer sought seven-day police custody, saying that Takle had entered the high-security Assembly premises without a valid pass. "It is to be investigated as to who helped him enter without authorisation," the officer told the court. He also submitted WhatsApp chats between Deshmukh and Awhad to emphasise the need for custodial interrogation. "This incident happened because of an earlier incident that had happened a few days ago. Both the accused have criminal antecedents. Takle has 6 cases; Deshmukh has 7 cases against him. We need to question both of them," said Rakesh Shinde, Police Sub-Inspector, Marine Drive Police counsel Jayant Bardeskar and Datta Mane, appearing for Takle, argued that the viral video of the incident showed it was not a premeditated attack."See the video which is viral, both the accused had a dialogue and then this happened. This is just a co-incidence that they came together and in the midst of a heated exchange, this happened. But they did not do anything after they were pulled away from each other," Bardeskar told the also referred to a separate FIR against Awhad, saying, "When the police were taking the two accused to the police station, the second accused party workers created a ruckus. I am showing this FIR as Takle is not the person creating the ruckus. The opposite party was the aggressor."Advocates Kunjan Makwana and Sneha Bhange, appearing for Deshmukh, said he had a valid entry pass and was not the one who initiated the scuffle."Look at my medical report, the viral video shows that he was not the person who hit first. His shirt was torn, and he was standing in his vest. He was already in police custody when the second FIR (against Awhad) was registered," submitted Marine Drive Police registered an FIR based on a complaint filed by Sachin Vitthal Patne, Security Officer at Vidhan Bhavan. The FIR includes charges under Sections 189(1)(a), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 194(2), 195(1), 195(2), and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
From debates to straight-out brawls, Maharashtra Assembly's steady drift to chaos
Legislative assemblies are meant to be sanctums of democracy, where debate and dialogue shape the future of the state. However, over the past two decades, the precincts of the Maharashtra Assembly have increasingly been turned into a battleground, witnessing fistfights between legislators to full-scale brawls between their political supporters. Thursday's incident of an outright brawl between the supporters of BJP MLA Gopichand Padalkar and Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MLA Jitendra Awhad in the lobby of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly has showcased the fragility of legislative decorum, which has been eroding at a fast pace in the state. Brawls inside the Maharashtra Assembly The functioning of the Maharashtra Assembly has periodically been marred by episodes of physical and procedural disorder. While Maharashtra's legislature is deemed institutionally robust, with MLAs known for following procedural norms, the situation seems to have deteriorated substantially, particularly over the last two decades. The most talked about incident took place on August 12, 1964, when Forward Bloc's MLA Jambuwantrao Dhote, after being ordered to leave the House by Speaker Balasaheb Bharde, threw a glass paperweight at the latter's chair. For this display of anger and defiance, the Assembly expelled him permanently, a rare and drastic disciplinary action. Since then, the Assembly has witnessed aggressive and unparliamentary behaviour multiple times. However, even during the peak of the Shiv Sena's aggressive streak, proceedings both inside and outside the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly rarely saw outbreaks of violence. This streak, however, was broken on November 10, 2009, when Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Azmi, who took his oath in Urdu instead of Marathi, was assaulted inside the well of the House by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) legislators. Subsequently, in March 2013, assistant police inspector Sachin Suryavanshi, who had fined Kshitij Thakur, the then MLA of Bahujan Vikas Aghadi, for speeding, was attacked inside the Vidhan Bhavan by a group of legislators. At least three MLAs were reported to have slapped and punched the officer for nearly 10 minutes. The assault occurred after Suryavanshi appeared in the Assembly during a breach-of-privilege motion filed against him. He was dragged from the visitors' gallery and beaten in the corridor. The incident caused a major rift with the Mumbai police, who surrounded the Assembly premises in an attempt to arrest the offending legislators. A confrontation was, however, averted and most of the MLAs went scot-free. Present Assembly session: the most controversial The ongoing Maharashtra Assembly session has been one of the nastiest in recent memory, with MLAs and ministers forgetting civility and their supporters being brazen enough to fight inside the precincts. The three-week-long session had numerous instances where ministers, including Shambhuraj Desai, lost their cool while replying to questions raised by Opposition MLAs. The behaviour of legislators, their staff, and supporters has also been questionable. Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Varun Sardesai, in front of television cameras, got into a confrontation with the staff of the Deputy Chairperson of the Maharashtra Legislative Council and Shiv Sena leader Neelam Gorhe, accusing them of deliberately shoving him twice. The Gopichand Padalkar–Jitendra Awhad feud has also been simmering for the last three days. Padalkar, known for his acerbic tongue and constant stream of allegations against Sharad Pawar, was called a 'mangalsutra thief' by Awhad three days ago inside the Assembly premises. A day later, the two had a tiff after Awhad and his supporters alleged that Padalkar deliberately banged his car door forcefully against Awhad while getting out of his vehicle. This feud subsequently escalated into violence between their supporters inside the Assembly on Thursday. What explains this behaviour Legal and procedural protections play a role in allowing MLAs to brazen it out. Article 194 of the Constitution grants certain privileges to MLAs, including freedom of speech in the Assembly, immunity from legal proceedings for anything said or voted on inside the House, and protection from arrest in civil cases during the session and 40 days before and after. However, this protection does not extend to criminal acts such as assault, battery, or criminal intimidation. Before the police take action during an Assembly session, the Speaker's permission is often sought as a courtesy, especially in the case of sitting legislators. However, action is rarely taken against MLAs for criminal violations inside the Assembly premises. While their supporters are liable for criminal action for violence undertaken inside the Assembly, MLAs generally avoid facing legal consequences. The only real fear legislators face is the threat of suspension from the House. Even that does not seem to be very effective. Since the establishment of the Maharashtra Assembly in 1960, the Speaker has suspended 333 legislators for misconduct within the House. However, only 172 of them, roughly 52 per cent, have served their full suspension period, with the Assembly frequently revoking its decisions before the punishment is completed. In recent decades, the state has become increasingly lenient in reversing suspensions. Since 1999, as many as 137 MLAs have been suspended, but nearly 85 per cent of these suspensions (116 MLAs) were later revoked. The revocation of suspensions is a more recent trend. Prior to 1999, the Speaker took a more rigid approach, ensuring that suspended members served their full punishment. Between 1960 and 1999, as many as 196 MLAs were suspended, with only 21 per cent (44 legislators) having their suspensions revoked. According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha, which serve as a template for most state assemblies in India, a legislator can be suspended for disregarding the authority of the Chair. 'The Speaker may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof. (2) If a member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made, forthwith put the question that the member (naming such member) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session,' the rules state.
