Over 10,000 objections to proposed Special Public Security Act

Apart from the thousands of the mails and letters received by the state legislature, social organisatioins have given a call for the state –wide protests at district and taluka level against the bill on April 22. It will be followed by a huge protest rally in Mumbai on the first day of the monsoon session on June 30

MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, aimed at curbing ‘urban naxalism’ and ‘anarchist activities’, received more than 10,000 objections and suggestions by the April 1 deadline. Civil liberties groups have written to the state legislature, raising concerns over the sweeping powers conferred by the bill on the state machinery. They fear the state could exploit the loosely worded bill to silence dissent from human rights activists and political opponents.

Over 10,000 objections to proposed Special Public Security Act

Currently under the deliberation of a joint select committee, the bill has been called “anti-democracy” and a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Apart from sending thousands of e-mails and letters to the state legislature, hundreds of social organisations and civil liberties groups have called for state-wide protests on April 22. This will be followed by a huge protest rally in Mumbai on the first day of the monsoon session on June 30.

In their written submissions, these organisations have objected to terms like ‘urban naxals’, ‘anarchist activities’ and ‘frontal organisations’ used in the bill. It is currently under review of a joint select committee headed by revenue minister and state BJP chief, Chandrashekhar Bawankule, and comprising of 25 legislators from both houses.

Underlining the bill’s vague and ambiguous phrasing, which leaves it open to potential misuse, the petition points to Section 2(f). This refers to ‘unlawful activity’ as ‘any action taken by an individual or organisation whether by committing an act or by words’. This could lead to actions granted under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression being termed as ‘unlawful’ it states.

It further states that ‘the act which constitutes a gander to public order, peace and tranquility and interferes with the administration of law...’ may be used to suppress dissenting voices against government policies and decisions.

The petition points out that the definition of ‘organisations’ and ‘unlawful organisations’ is also vague and organisations ranging from Advance Locality Management (ALMs), cultural groups, informal book clubs could be declared illegal. “Existing laws including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have adequate provisions to take action against criminal and terror activities by organisations and there is no need for more laws,” the petition adds.

Similarly, it has objected to the sweeping powers conferred on the government to ban organisations without providing any proof, and seal their premises without notice.

Ulka Mahajan, state convenor of the Bharat Jodo Andolan, said, “The BJP leadership had publicly said that social activists and their organisations had played a key role in awareness among voters during the Lok Sabha elections, which resulted in the defeat of the ruling alliance. The PSA Bill was brought in immediately after that, with the intention to crush dissenting voices in Maharashtra, where the network of these organisations is strong.” Mahajan added, “We have submitted our petition, signed by more than 18,000 people and organisations to the state legislature, opposing the move.”

Bharat Patankar of the Shramik Mukti Dal, remarked, “Clearly, the government’s intentions go beyond what the bill purports to achieve.”

Officials from the state legislature said the joint select committee is expected to summon some of the organisations and activists who have made written submissions in the next few days. The committee is expected to present its recommendations before the end of the monsoon session of the legislature.

Maharashtra BJP vice-president Madhav Bhandari said, “The resistance to this law is from organisations that are interested in partitioning this country and who had ridiculed the country’s independence in 1947. Had the PSA been anti-democracy, why would the government invite suggestions and objections from the people?”