Cracking Down on Urban Naxals: The Need of Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill
18 Mar 2025 10:53:38
In 2004, a revealing document titled Urban Perspective surfaced from the Communist Party of India (Maoist), exposing a calculated shift in Naxalite strategy. No longer confined to the dense forest and remote villages, the movement had set its sights on the cities and institutions that shape the nation’s intellectual and political fabric. The document emphasised the strategic necessity of urban recruitment, particularly targeting the students, academics, professionals and activists. Over the years, this approach has borne fruit, with many of the movement’s key ideologues emerging not from the jungles, but from university campuses and intellectual circles.
The urban front of the Naxal movement is not one of armed combat but ideological warfare, infiltrating key sectors of society, particularly trade unions, academia, human rights groups, and cultural organisations. Under the banner of progressive discourse, these ‘organisations’ mobilise the students, intellectuals, and marginalised communities, by subtly indoctrinating and embedding radical ideology under the garb of ‘public consciousness’
Recognising this urgency of threat, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, reintroduced the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPC) Bill, soon after resuming office, in December 2024. This move signaled a renewed push to counter the growing influence of Urban Naxalism.
Initially introduced in July last year during the monsoon session of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, the bill was reintroduced in December 2024 by CM Fadnavis. The proposed legislation aims to address the rising presence of Naxalism in urban areas by criminalising various actions, including interfering with public order and law enforcement, spreading fear among the public, and promoting disobedience of the law.
The bill specifically aims to curb Urban Naxalism, a phenomenon where Naxal groups, traditionally confined to remote regions, are infiltrating cities through “frontal organisations” that provide logistical support and safe havens for armed cadres. This expanding urban influence is a deliberate attempt to erode faith in the Constitution and provide safe havens for these militants.
Notably, similar Public Security Acts have been implemented in Naxal-affected states like Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha to curb extremist activities.
How valid are these concerns? Let us see:
What are the main provisions of the proposed law?
The Bill gives the government the power to declare any suspect “organisation” as an “unlawful organisation”. It prescribes four offences for which an individual can be punished:
(i) for being a member of an unlawful organisation,
(ii) when not a member, for raising funds for an unlawful organisation,
(iii) for managing or assisting in managing an unlawful organisation and,
(iv) for committing an “unlawful activity”.
These four offences carry jail terms of up to two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from up to Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The offence relating to committing an unlawful activity carries the toughest punishment: imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
Offences under the proposed law are cognisable, which means arrests can be made without a warrant and non-bailable.
UAPA vs MSPC
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is used most commonly in terrorism-related cases, while the MSPC bill will focus more on frontal organisations which are directly or indirectly involved in Naxalism activities.
While the UAPA also targets unlawful activities, the MSPC Bill expands the definition of "unlawful activity" to include acts that interfere with public order, and administration of law, and generate fear among the public.
Both the UAPA and the MSPC Bill prescribe similar procedures for making such a declaration. Under the UAPA, a Tribunal headed by a judge of a High Court confirms the declaration made by the state. In the MSPC Bill, an advisory board consisting of “three persons who have been or are qualified to be” a judge of an HC are tasked with carrying out the confirmation process.
While UAPA focuses on serious threats to India's sovereignty and territorial integrity, with courts setting clear interpretations over time, the Maharashtra Bill lowers the threshold for what can be considered unlawful. A key difference is in the approval process for prosecution—UAPA requires sanction from the central or state government, often causing delays, whereas the new law allows district magistrates or police commissioners to grant permission, ensuring a faster process. Officials argue that these delays under UAPA sometimes lead to acquittals, and the proposed law aims to enable quicker legal action against such activities.
And what exactly constitutes “unlawful activity” in the Bill presented in the Maharashtra Assembly?
The following acts, either written or spoken, constitute unlawful activity under the Maharashtra Bill:
(i) which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace is and tranquility; or
(ii) which interferes or tends to interfere with maintenance of public order; or
(iii) which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or
(iv) which is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force or otherwise to any public servant including the forces of the State Government or the Central Government in exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant and Forces; or
(v) indulging in or propagating, acts of violence, vandalising or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public, or indulging in or encouraging, the use of firearms, explosives or other devices or disrupting communications by rail, road, air or water; or
(vi) encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or
(vii) collecting money or goods to carry out any one or more of the unlawful activities mentioned above…”
Naxal groups, which oppose the country’s development and pose a threat to democracy, have long extended their influence beyond rural areas, infiltrating cities through students, politicians, and activists. Given this growing urban presence, the implementation of such laws becomes crucial to maintaining national security. Moreover, CM Fadnavis has emphasised that the bill is not intended to suppress genuine dissent but is specifically aimed at countering extremist threats and safeguarding public order.
The urban front of the Naxal movement is not one of armed combat but ideological warfare, infiltrating key sectors of society, particularly trade unions, academia, human rights groups, and cultural organisations. Under the banner of progressive discourse, these ‘organisations’ mobilise the students, intellectuals, and marginalised communities, by subtly indoctrinating and embedding radical ideology under the garb of ‘public consciousness’
Recognising this urgency of threat, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, reintroduced the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPC) Bill, soon after resuming office, in December 2024. This move signaled a renewed push to counter the growing influence of Urban Naxalism.
Initially introduced in July last year during the monsoon session of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, the bill was reintroduced in December 2024 by CM Fadnavis. The proposed legislation aims to address the rising presence of Naxalism in urban areas by criminalising various actions, including interfering with public order and law enforcement, spreading fear among the public, and promoting disobedience of the law.
The bill specifically aims to curb Urban Naxalism, a phenomenon where Naxal groups, traditionally confined to remote regions, are infiltrating cities through “frontal organisations” that provide logistical support and safe havens for armed cadres. This expanding urban influence is a deliberate attempt to erode faith in the Constitution and provide safe havens for these militants.
Notably, similar Public Security Acts have been implemented in Naxal-affected states like Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha to curb extremist activities.
Following criticism and concerns over its provisions, the bill was referred to a joint parliamentary committee led by BJP MLA and Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule. The committee recently invited public representatives, social activists, social organisations, and NGOs to submit their suggestions and objections through advertisements in major local newspapers. Stakeholders have been asked to submit their written opinions to the Maharashtra Assembly Secretary by 5 PM on April 1, 2025. However, the Opposition and civil society groups have strongly criticised the proposed Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, calling it draconian.
How valid are these concerns? Let us see:
What are the main provisions of the proposed law?
The Bill gives the government the power to declare any suspect “organisation” as an “unlawful organisation”. It prescribes four offences for which an individual can be punished:
(i) for being a member of an unlawful organisation,
(ii) when not a member, for raising funds for an unlawful organisation,
(iii) for managing or assisting in managing an unlawful organisation and,
(iv) for committing an “unlawful activity”.
These four offences carry jail terms of up to two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from up to Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The offence relating to committing an unlawful activity carries the toughest punishment: imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
Offences under the proposed law are cognisable, which means arrests can be made without a warrant and non-bailable.
UAPA vs MSPC
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is used most commonly in terrorism-related cases, while the MSPC bill will focus more on frontal organisations which are directly or indirectly involved in Naxalism activities.
While the UAPA also targets unlawful activities, the MSPC Bill expands the definition of "unlawful activity" to include acts that interfere with public order, and administration of law, and generate fear among the public.
Both the UAPA and the MSPC Bill prescribe similar procedures for making such a declaration. Under the UAPA, a Tribunal headed by a judge of a High Court confirms the declaration made by the state. In the MSPC Bill, an advisory board consisting of “three persons who have been or are qualified to be” a judge of an HC are tasked with carrying out the confirmation process.
While UAPA focuses on serious threats to India's sovereignty and territorial integrity, with courts setting clear interpretations over time, the Maharashtra Bill lowers the threshold for what can be considered unlawful. A key difference is in the approval process for prosecution—UAPA requires sanction from the central or state government, often causing delays, whereas the new law allows district magistrates or police commissioners to grant permission, ensuring a faster process. Officials argue that these delays under UAPA sometimes lead to acquittals, and the proposed law aims to enable quicker legal action against such activities.
And what exactly constitutes “unlawful activity” in the Bill presented in the Maharashtra Assembly?
The following acts, either written or spoken, constitute unlawful activity under the Maharashtra Bill:
(i) which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace is and tranquility; or
(ii) which interferes or tends to interfere with maintenance of public order; or
(iii) which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or
(iv) which is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force or otherwise to any public servant including the forces of the State Government or the Central Government in exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant and Forces; or
(v) indulging in or propagating, acts of violence, vandalising or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public, or indulging in or encouraging, the use of firearms, explosives or other devices or disrupting communications by rail, road, air or water; or
(vi) encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or
(vii) collecting money or goods to carry out any one or more of the unlawful activities mentioned above…”
Naxal groups, which oppose the country’s development and pose a threat to democracy, have long extended their influence beyond rural areas, infiltrating cities through students, politicians, and activists. Given this growing urban presence, the implementation of such laws becomes crucial to maintaining national security. Moreover, CM Fadnavis has emphasised that the bill is not intended to suppress genuine dissent but is specifically aimed at countering extremist threats and safeguarding public order.
