Maharashtra Passes Controversial Public Security Bill Amid Opposition Walkout And Misuse Fears

The Maharashtra state government has passed the contentious ‘Special Public Security Bill 2024’ in both Houses of the legislature, despite vehement protests from opposition parties who have raised alarm over the bill’s potential misuse and political motives. The bill, aimed at curbing "anti-national activities" allegedly conducted by extreme left-wing organizations, was passed in the Assembly on Thursday and in the Legislative Council on Friday, with a majority vote. The bill will now be sent to the Governor for final approval, after which it will become law—empowering police to take action under its provisions.

Prominent opposition leader and UBT (Shiv Sena) chief Uddhav Thackeray strongly opposed the bill, branding it the “BJP Suraksha Bill” rather than a genuine “Jan Suraksha (Public Security) Bill.” Speaking to the media, Thackeray questioned the intent and clarity of the bill. “What does the government mean by ‘extreme leftist ideology’? There is no definition in the bill. If the objective is to curb Naxalism, then why isn’t the word 'Naxal' mentioned even once?” Thackeray asked.

He warned that the bill could be used against any organization or individual that speaks out or protests against the government, drawing comparisons to earlier draconian laws like TADA. Thackeray also pointed to a recent statement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who said that Naxalism would be eradicated by 2027.

“If Naxalism is going to be eliminated by 2027, then why introduce such a law now? This raises suspicion that the bill is aimed at suppressing the opposition,” Thackeray alleged.

While clarifying that his party supports action against anti-national elements, he expressed concern that the bill reeks of political misuse.

“Anyone can be detained arbitrarily. Anyone who criticizes the BJP is not a traitor. If this is the government's mindset, it’s a perverse one. Tomorrow, under the guise of public safety, you could jail anyone,” he warned.

Heated Debate in the Legislative Council

The bill, tabled in the Council by Minister of State for Home Yogesh Kadam, sparked a heated debate. UBT MLCs Anil Parab, Ambadas Danve, and Congress MLC Satej Patil voiced strong objections.

Anil Parab argued that existing laws like UAPA, MCOCA, and others already provide sufficient legal provisions to act against terrorism and Naxalism.

“If all provisions already exist in current laws, what is the need for a new one? Is this bill being brought to target organizations instead of individuals? Is this part of a political agenda?” Parab asked, adding that the government should amend and reintroduce the bill instead of passing it in its current form.

He further said, “You can’t create separate laws for left or right ideologies. If a right-wing extremist is a threat to the country, he must be punished too. Why distinguish between left and right?”

As the debate intensified, Ambadas Danve objected to ruling party MLA Prasad Lad’s controversial comment stating that Shiv Sena was formed to "destroy communist ideology," calling it irrelevant and inflammatory. The opposition eventually staged a walkout, protesting what they called an undemocratic push to pass the bill.

In their absence, Legislative Council Chairman Ram Shinde proceeded with the vote, and the bill was passed.

Government’s Defense

In response to the opposition's criticism, MoS Home Yogesh Kadam defended the bill, asserting that it would not be used against student groups or political opponents, but only against left-wing extremist elements that pose a real threat to national security.

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis also defended the legislation on Friday, stating that it is crucial for cracking down on banned organizations still operating in Maharashtra.

RSS Chief's 'Retire At 75' Remark Sparks Political Firestorm; Opposition Dubs It As 'Clear Message' For PM Modi (VIDEO)

“At least six organizations banned in other states are still active in Maharashtra. This bill has adequate legal safeguards to prevent misuse,” Fadnavis assured, seeking to quell fears about the law's broader implications.

Opposition's Objections:

• Vague and overly broad definitions of “unlawful activities”

• Unchecked powers of seizure and arrest

• Exclusion of district courts from the legal process

• Lack of independent oversight in the Advisory Board's composition

• Extensive surveillance and financial seizure powers without due process

• No public hearings despite inviting written objections from citizens and groups

• No personal hearings granted to any of the hundreds who submitted objections

• Objection list not made public, and no transparency on dissenting views

• Over 9,500 objections called for the bill's withdrawal — none were considered

• Only nominal amendments were made that did not alter the law's core framework