Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024

The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024, aims to address the rising threat of Naxalism in urban areas by empowering the government and law enforcement agencies to combat unlawful activities and organizations linked to Naxal groups.

Current Context:

• Urban Naxals: These are individuals allegedly supporting the Naxalite movement from urban areas, providing various forms of support to insurgents.
• Statistics: From 2018 to mid-2023, there were 3,544 incidents related to Left Wing Extremism (LWE) and 949 deaths.

Legal Framework Related to Naxalism:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2024:
• Section 196: Penalizes acts promoting enmity between groups based on various grounds.
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967:
• Addresses terrorism and unlawful activities, including support and funding for such activities.
• State-Specific Acts:
• Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 2020.
• Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005.
• Odisha Public Security Acts.
• These states have similar laws to manage LWE-related threats.
• National Policy and Action Plan, 2015:
• A multi-faceted approach involving security, development, and rights of local communities.

Key Provisions of the MSPS Bill, 2024:

• Definition of Unlawful Activities:
• Activities posing a threat to public order, interfering with law and administration, involving violence or vandalism, preaching disobedience to law, or collecting funds for such activities.
• Declaration of Unlawful Organizations:
• The state government can declare an organization as unlawful if it promotes armed rebellion against constitutional mandates.
• Legal Review Process:
• Advisory Board: Within six weeks of declaring an organization unlawful, the government must refer the case to an advisory board comprising three qualified individuals (current/former High Court judges).
• Board's Report: The board must review evidence and submit a report within three months. If the board finds insufficient cause, the government must revoke the unlawful declaration.
• Offences and Punishment:
• Members of Unlawful Organizations: Up to 3 years imprisonment and Rs 3 lakh fine.
• Non-members Aiding Unlawful Organizations: Up to 2 years imprisonment and Rs 2 lakh fine.
• Management/Promotion of Unlawful Organizations: Up to 3 years imprisonment and Rs 3 lakh fine.
• Committing, Abetting, or Planning Unlawful Activities: Up to 7 years imprisonment and Rs 5 lakh fine.
• Cognizable and Non-bailable: All offences under this bill are serious, allowing police to arrest without a warrant and subject to judicial discretion for bail.
• Seizure and Forfeiture:
• Seizure: The District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police can seize properties and assets used by unlawful organizations.
• Forfeiture: The government can forfeit money and assets intended for unlawful activities. A revision petition can be filed with the high court against such actions.

Significance and Implications:

• Enhanced Security Measures:
• Strengthens the legal framework for tackling Naxalism and related activities in urban areas.
• Aims to improve the effectiveness of security operations and legal responses against Naxal-affiliated organizations.
• Legal and Constitutional Considerations:
• Compliance: The bill aligns with existing legal frameworks for combating terrorism and unlawful activities but introduces stricter measures for urban contexts.
• Judicial Oversight: The advisory board provides a check on the state government's power to declare organizations unlawful, ensuring fairness in the process.
• Public and Administrative Impact:
• Public Safety: The bill seeks to enhance public safety by targeting organizations and individuals involved in Naxal-related activities.
• Administrative Burden: Implementation will involve significant coordination among law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

Comparison of the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967

Scope and Focus:

• UAPA:
• National Scope: UAPA is a national law that addresses terrorism and unlawful activities across India. It deals with various forms of terrorism, including activities that threaten the integrity and sovereignty of the country.
• Broad Coverage: UAPA covers a wide range of terrorist acts and unlawful activities, including those related to Naxalism but also other forms of terrorism and secessionist activities.
• MSPS:
• State-Specific Focus: MSPS specifically targets the issue of 'urban Naxalism' within Maharashtra. It is designed to address activities and organizations within the state that are alleged to support or promote Naxalite insurgencies, particularly in urban areas.
• Narrower Focus: The bill concentrates on combating unlawful activities and organizations associated with urban Naxals, distinguishing it from the broader national focus of UAPA.

Legal Review and Oversight:

• UAPA:
• Tribunal for Verification: Under UAPA, the declaration of an organization as a terrorist organization or the imposition of certain restrictions is subject to verification by a tribunal led by a High Court judge. This provides a judicial check on the state’s actions.
• MSPS:
• Advisory Body: The MSPS Bill establishes an advisory board comprising three qualified individuals, including current or former High Court judges, to review and provide recommendations on the government’s decision to declare an organization as unlawful. This review must occur within six weeks of the declaration, with a report due within three months.
• Government Accountability: If the advisory board finds insufficient cause for the declaration, the government must revoke the notification. This offers a mechanism for oversight and accountability.

Legal Procedures and Enforcement:

• UAPA:
• Standard Legal Procedures: UAPA follows standard legal procedures for arrest, investigation, and prosecution. Arrests typically require warrants, and the accused are informed of the charges against them.
• MSPS:
• Enhanced Powers: The MSPS Bill grants enhanced powers to state police and security agencies, allowing for arrests without warrants and often without immediate disclosure of charges. All offences under MSPS are cognizable and non-bailable, meaning police can arrest without a warrant, and bail is not a right but subject to judicial discretion.
• Combination with MCOCA: In extreme situations involving individuals labeled as ‘urban Naxals’, the Maharashtra government may use the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) alongside UAPA. MCOCA provides additional measures for organized crime, but MSPS aims to streamline enforcement by focusing specifically on urban Naxalism.

Punishments and Offences:

• UAPA:
• Range of Offences: UAPA defines various offences related to terrorism and unlawful activities, with corresponding punishments, including imprisonment and fines. It provides for stringent measures but within the framework of established legal processes.
• MSPS:
• Specific Offences and Penalties: The MSPS Bill defines specific offences related to urban Naxal activities and prescribes punishments, including imprisonment and fines. The bill outlines clear penalties for members of unlawful organizations, contributors, and those involved in planning or committing unlawful activities.

Key Differences Summarized:

• Scope and Focus:
• UAPA has a national scope covering a broad range of terrorism and unlawful activities.
• MSPS is specific to Maharashtra and targets urban Naxalism.
• Legal Review:
• UAPA uses a tribunal led by a High Court judge for verifying declarations.
• MSPS uses an advisory board with high judicial qualifications for review.
• Enforcement Powers:
• UAPA involves standard procedures with required warrants and informed charges.
• MSPS allows arrest without warrants and provides for non-bailable, cognizable offences.
• Combination with Other Laws:
• UAPA may be used alongside other laws like MCOCA.
• MSPS seeks to consolidate powers under one framework specific to urban Naxalism.

The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024, has faced several criticisms based on its scope, definitions, and the powers it grants.

1. Unrequired Legislation

Criticism:

• Redundancy: Critics argue that the MSPS Bill is redundant given the existing legal framework. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which includes provisions for handling terrorist activities, organized crimes, and petty organized crimes, already centralizes and addresses similar issues covered by UAPA and MCOCA.
• Overlap: The BNS consolidates the legal framework for handling terrorism and organized crime, making the MSPS Bill appear unnecessary. This overlap might lead to confusion and inefficiency in law enforcement and judicial processes.

Implication:

• Legal Complexity: Introducing a new law when existing laws already cover the intended areas can lead to legal and administrative complexities. It may also dilute the effectiveness of existing frameworks and create confusion among enforcement agencies.

2. Vague Definition of Unlawful Activities

Criticism:

• Ambiguity: The MSPS Bill's definition of "unlawful activity" is criticized for being overly broad and vague. Terms like "menace to public order, peace, and tranquillity" are not clearly defined, leaving significant room for interpretation.
• Misuse Risk: The ambiguity in definitions can lead to misuse of the law, as authorities may interpret these terms in ways that could suppress legitimate dissent or target individuals unfairly.

Implication:

• Arbitrary Enforcement: Vague definitions increase the risk of arbitrary enforcement, where individuals or groups could be prosecuted based on broad or subjective interpretations of the law.

3. Arbitrary Police Powers

Criticism:

• Excessive Authority: The bill grants police the power to arrest individuals without a warrant and to seize or take possession of any premises associated with unlawful organizations. This power is seen as excessive and prone to abuse.
• Potential for Misuse: The broad powers given to police can lead to situations where individuals are unjustly detained or property is unjustly seized, undermining civil liberties.

Implication:

• Civil Rights Concerns: The potential for misuse of police powers raises significant concerns about civil rights and personal freedoms. Such powers may lead to violations of fundamental rights and erosion of trust in law enforcement agencies.

4. Advisory Board

Criticism:

• Appointment Concerns: The bill allows for the appointment of an advisory board consisting of ex-judges or individuals who qualify to be judges. Critics argue that this provision might allow the government to appoint individuals who are sympathetic to its views.
• Lack of Independence: The possibility of appointing individuals with political or governmental biases could undermine the objectivity and independence of the advisory board.

Implication:

• Bias and Influence: The potential for biased appointments may compromise the fairness and credibility of the advisory board’s reviews, affecting the checks and balances intended to ensure just application of the law.

5. Prosecuting Non-Members

Criticism:

• Overreach: The bill allows for the prosecution of individuals who are not members of an unlawful organization but who may contribute to or support such organizations in various ways. This can include those who are not directly involved but may have provided indirect support.
• Risk of Innocents Being Targeted: This broad approach increases the risk of innocent individuals being prosecuted, potentially leading to wrongful convictions and undue legal consequences for people with no direct involvement in unlawful activities.

Implication:

• Injustice and Miscarriages of Justice: Broadening the scope to include non-members can lead to miscarriages of justice and unfair treatment of individuals who may have minimal or indirect connections to the unlawful activities in question.