MSPSA critics vow to fight the law in courts, on the streets

Maharashtra's SPSA faces backlash from civil society, who plan to challenge it in court and protest, citing concerns over misuse and vague definitions.

MUMBAI: The passage of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (SPSA) in the state legislature has evoked sharp reactions from civil society groups, which say they will challenge the law in the courts and won’t hesitate to take their protest to the streets.

Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis in state assembly while passing the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act.

The law has also exposed cracks within the opposition, as the bill was supported by opposition parties in the legislative assembly on Thursday but opposed in the legislative council on Friday, even as the ruling parties cleared it in the upper house.

Civil society groups and social organisations, which have opposed the law ever since the draft bill was first tabled in the legislature last year, had submitted more than 12,300 objections to the proposed legislation. They say that although the state claims the bill is aimed at curbing “urban naxals”, the preamble is open-ended and does not specify “urban naxal” and “unlawful activities”. This empowers the government to take action against any individual they want to silence, they argue.

She said the other four states that had passed the law had done so when there were no stringent provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). “We will go to the court of the people by holding protests to make everyone aware of the suppression by the government.”

Civil society groups also claim that the advisory board under the law would not act independently as it would be appointed by the government. Furthermore, district collectors and the police have been given “excessive powers” to deal with the properties of organisations targeted by the law, pointing to the misuse of UAPA and other laws in Maharashtra in the Bhima-Koregaon and other cases.

Organisations standing firmly against the law are the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Free Speech Collective, Human Rights Defenders Alert, People’s Watch, Centre for Promoting Democracy, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Kamgar Ekta Union, and many more. They met leaders from opposition parties on Friday, including Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, urging them to oppose the MSPSA.

The new law also saw a split in the opposition, which staged a walkout when the bill came up for discussion in the state legislative council on Friday, after it was unanimously supported by the opposition in the assembly on Thursday. “Most of the opposition members in the 25-member joint select committee (JSC) that had reviewed the bill were from the assembly. They did not ensure that all 20 amendments suggested in the original draft in the JSC were incorporated,” said a Sena (UBT) leader, requesting anonymity. NCP (SP) leader Jitendra Awhad, said, “We were told by the chairman (of the JSC) that all the changes we had proposed would be incorporated, but only three were taken.”

Civil society groups had attempted to challenge the draft bill well before its passage. “After we were denied the opportunity to have our say before the JSC, we met opposition leaders on June 25. It was decided that the opposition would submit a dissent note in the JSC and strongly oppose the bill it when it came up for passage. Nothing of that sort happened in the assembly and hence we urged leaders in the upper house to oppose it,” said a member of the delegation.

The only sliver of protest was a walkout staged by the opposition in the legislative council when the bill was passed on Friday.

Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray said they had submitted a dissent note to the chairperson of the legislative council, Ram Shinde. “The definition of “unlawful activities” and “unlawful organisations” is ambiguous, allowing the government to book anybody who raises their voice against the state. We are not against the bill if it really intends to act against naxals, but the law should be more specific. It is likely to be misused like MISA and TADA,” he said.