FPJ Analysis: Maharashtra’s Public Security Bill Raises Alarm Over Civil Liberties, Lacks Constitutional Safeguards

The state legislature passed a controversial legislation titled Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill on Friday and thereby understandably has instilled fear in the minds of democratic forces. 

In the statement of objects and reasons, chief minister Devendra Fadnavis said the bill was aimed at curbing the "menace of naxalism" which was not limited to remote forests but is also making itself increasingly felt in urban areas through front organisations. He noted that the states of Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have already passed similar legislations as if that was enough to justify a similar law in Maharashtra. 

But was new legislation really necessary to tackle the "menace of naxalism"? The government has the Unlawful Activities  Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) apart from the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and other laws at its disposal. Despite these plethora of laws the government has been unable to tackle naxalism primarily because it has viewed naxalism merely as a law and order problem and not as a sociological issue. It has done precious little to empower the adivasis and marginalised sections of society and also has not acted against their exploiters viz forest and mining contractors and their proxies in the police force. Hundreds of crores allocated for tribal welfare are swallowed by politicians and bureaucrats.  Vijaykumar Gavit, former minister for tribal welfare, was indicted by the Gaikwad commission in the Rs 6,000 cr tribal development scam. Instead of criminally prosecuting him, Fadnavis inducted him into the BJP and forgot all about the scam. The washing machine was at work. As many as 11,000 people have got jobs in the state government by using fake tribal certificates. The Supreme Court favoured the  filing of FIR and action against them. Fadnavis is yet to implement the SC order.  While there is no justification for violence, it is the gross failure of the government to genuinely work for the uplift of tribals which has created tremendous discontent among them. And it is precisely this discontent which the naxals are exploiting to achieve their political goals.

The Public Security Bill has several vaguely drafted provisions which can be misused to curb dissent.  For example, clause 2 (f) defines ``unlawful activity" as ``any action taken by an individual or organisation whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation...which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility." This vague definition is sufficient to curb genuine democratic protest. It does not apply only to naxal activities but "any" activity which the government will determine to be constituting  a danger. The law is totally loaded in favour of the government and makes a mockery of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

There is no reference to the due process of law. The bill does talk of the appointment of an advisory committee -- clause 5 (2) -- which will vet government actions under it. But the powers of this committee is vastly limited by clause 2 (3) which says that if the state government ``is of the opinion that circumstances exist which render it necessary for the government to declare an organisation to be unlawful ....with immediate effect" it may do so without reference to the advisory committee. And more insidious  is clause 3 (2) which says that ``nothing in this subsection shall require the government to disclose any fact which it considers to be against the public interest." So there is no obligation to reveal why it wants a particular organisation , individual or action to be declared unlawful. Nothing can be more opaque than this. 

There are several other aspects to this bill which are ultra vires of the Constitution. This bill has been passed by a government which has a brute majority in the legislature but lacks the moral right to do that given the fact that it has the likes of Vijaykumar Gavit on its side.

There are indications that this bill, which will become a law on the governor endorsing it,  will  be challenged in the court by concerned civil rights organisations. It will not in the least be surprising if the court summarily strikes it down.

news