State (In)security Laws

Lawless laws for “public security” are an attack on citizens’ civil and political liberties.

Some are questioning whether Bill Gates has any influence on this issue.

Maharashtra’s New ‘Security Bill’ Sparks Alarm: Is Dissent Becoming a Crime?

A shadow looms over freedom of expression and dissent in Maharashtra, as concerns mount over a proposed Special Public Security Bill by the state government. Critics and rights activists warn that the vaguely worded legislation, ostensibly aimed at tackling “urban Naxals,” could be weaponized to silence any form of opposition, questioning, or even mild criticism against the government.

This proposed legislation comes against a grim backdrop where merely questioning the powerful has proven perilous. The past few years have seen prominent voices imprisoned or silenced, raising alarms about the safety of speaking out in India.

A Pattern of Peril:

• Umar Khalid: An activist, he has been imprisoned for nearly five years without trial, highlighting the extended periods of incarceration without due process for those accused of sedition or related charges.
• Gauri Lankesh: On September 5, 2017, the journalist and critic of right-wing extremism was brutally murdered by a fanatic, a stark reminder of the extreme dangers faced by those whose voices challenge prevailing narratives.
• Stan Swamy: The octogenarian tribal rights activist died in custody on July 5, 2021, of an apparent heart attack, after being denied bail despite his failing health. His case, and many others, underscore the severe consequences for activists and intellectuals labeled as ‘anti-national.’

These examples, among others, paint a worrying picture that speaking out in the country, especially against the establishment, is increasingly fraught with danger. The Maharashtra government’s new bill now threatens to formalize and strengthen this chilling atmosphere.

The Bill’s Alarming Provisions:

Broadly, the proposed Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill grants sweeping powers to the state police, allowing for the arrest of individuals without a warrant for actions that could be broadly interpreted as “endangering public order.”

Specifically, under this legislation:

• Criticism as Crime: If you criticize any government scheme on social media, ask questions to the government in a press conference, or join a protest opposing any government policy, the Maharashtra police can arrest you without a warrant.
• Non-Bailable Offence: Alarmingly, such arrests would be non-bailable, meaning an individual could be held indefinitely without the immediate possibility of release, mirroring concerns raised in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
• Vague Definition of ‘Urban Naxalism’: The bill claims to target “urban Naxals,” but the definition of this term is so broad and vague that it effectively criminalizes any form of dissent, opposition, or even mere questioning.
• Criminalizing Expression: Any disagreement expressed through speaking, writing, making posters, or even gestures, can be considered a violation. This casts a wide net over peaceful forms of protest and artistic expression.
• Challenging Institutions: The law can be used against anyone who criticizes or challenges a government institution, potentially stifling journalistic inquiry, academic freedom, and public discourse.

In essence, activities traditionally considered cornerstones of a democratic society – protest marches, public demonstrations, raising slogans, critical media reporting, or writing about human rights violations – could all become criminal offences under this proposed law.

The Unanswered Questions:

The introduction of this bill raises critical questions about its true intent:

• Is this law genuinely meant to tackle hardcore criminals or is its real aim to intimidate and silence those who question the government?
• Is this legislation truly for people’s safety, or is it a mechanism to muzzle citizens in the name of security?
• Who exactly are these “urban Naxals” for whom the Maharashtra government feels the need to introduce such an expansive and potentially draconian law? Is it a genuine threat, or a convenient label to suppress legitimate dissent?

As the bill awaits further action, civil liberties organizations and human rights activists are bracing for a renewed battle to protect the fundamental right to free speech and protest, fearing that Maharashtra is on the cusp of an era where disagreement itself becomes a crime.

Urban Naxal is a term that has been used increasingly over the past few years. But it has no clear definition—not in law, government documents, or court rulings. Still, many have faced serious charges based on this term, been arrested, and accused of spreading Naxal ideology. The term gained widespread attention in 2018 in relation to the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case, where human rights activists, lawyers, and teachers were arrested. Notable names like Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Arun Ferreira were among them. The government and some media labeled them as urban Naxals—people allegedly spreading Naxal ideology and promoting violence from cities. But on what basis were these accusations made? Did these people possess weapons? Were they directly linked to Naxal organizations? In most cases, the answer is no. In fact, the term urban Naxal has become an accusation used against those who disagree with government policies, those who raise voices for the poor, tribals, or workers, or question police and state excesses. Gradually, this term became associated not with any ideology but with dissent. That is why its impact is mostly based on propaganda and perception, not on any concrete law or definition. When a voice rises against power, calling it urban Naxal casts suspicion on it. This term has thus become a weapon to defame opposition without any trial or evidence, to silence dissent through fear and intimidation.

Now, the Maharashtra government is trying to give legal backing to this term urban Naxal through the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill. This law has been passed in the Maharashtra Assembly and Legislative Council and sent to the Governor for final approval. The draft was first introduced in the 2024 Monsoon Session but could not be passed due to suspension of the session. It was reintroduced in the December 2024 Winter Session, where it faced sharp criticism from civil society and opposition parties and was sent to a joint select committee of the legislature. The committee received over 12,000 suggestions and objections to the bill, but when it was brought back to the Assembly in July 2025, only three changes were made.

The first change was in the bill’s name and preamble. The word “individual” was removed from the preamble, so now the law directly addresses organizations. The preamble also clarified that the law targets illegal activities of left-wing extremist organizations or similar groups. So the government’s focus is now on organizations, whether banned or not.

The second major change was in Section 5(2). Earlier, it stated that an advisory board would consist of three persons who are current or former judges of a High Court, and the government would appoint one as chairman. Now, the chairman will still be a current or former High Court judge, but the other two members will be a retired judge and a government advocate appointed by the state government. This gives the government the power to appoint a member aligned with its thinking.

The third change concerns Section 152. Earlier, any police inspector or above could investigate cases under this law. Now, only an officer at the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or higher can conduct investigations.

Under this law, activities considered offenses include supporting banned organizations, providing them resources, promoting their activities, and even sympathizing with their ideology. So if you say something and the government alleges your views align with a particular Naxal organization, action can be taken against you under this law.

Another important point is that district magistrates and police commissioners are empowered to notify any place if they suspect it is being used by a banned organization for illegal activities and can seize that property, whether immovable or movable.

All this makes it clear that this law is brought not only against organizations but also to strictly act against any dissenting ideas or activities. Though the government presents it as a security measure, the question arises: when there are already strict laws like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) to deal with violence against the state, why was the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill needed separately?

Under UAPA, the central government has the power to declare an organization unlawful or terrorist. But a special tribunal headed by a High Court judge is set up to decide on imposing a permanent ban. This tribunal examines whether the ban is justified and delivers the final verdict. So the government does not have absolute control over the process and cannot arbitrarily declare any organization anti-national. To avoid this legal complexity, the government often uses the term “frontal organization” for many groups. But UAPA and MCOCA do not legally define “frontal organization.” Declaring an organization suspicious just because it is not banned and has no cases or evidence linking it to terrorism violates basic legal principles. However, the Maharashtra government’s new law includes provisions to act against such frontal organizations, distinguishing it from UAPA and MCOCA. In other words, the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill can target voices that were hard to legally catch under UAPA or MCOCA.

When a law can affect public rights and freedom of expression, it is usually expected that the opposition will engage in vigorous debate, raise questions, and openly oppose if necessary. However, in the case of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, the opposition’s role was very weak, almost silent. This is why a controversial law was easily passed in both the Assembly and the Legislative Council without any real challenge.

The Maharashtra Assembly has a total of 288 members. Of these, 230 MLAs belong to the BJP-led Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition. This means the government has an overwhelming majority in the house. With this strength, it can pass any bill, and that is exactly what happened. This majority is so decisive that even if the opposition had united fully in protest, there was no chance the law would have been stopped.

But the question is not whether the bill was stopped or not. The question is: did the opposition truly oppose it? Several senior opposition leaders were part of the Joint Select Committee — Nana Patole, Vijay Wadettiwar, Satish Patil from Congress; Jitendra Awhad and Shashikant Shinde from the Sharad Pawar faction of NCP; and Ambadas Danve and Bhaskar Jadhav from the Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena. All these leaders had thoroughly studied the draft of the bill and had even given suggestions.

However, when the bill was presented in its final form in the Assembly, their suggestions were not incorporated. NCP leader Jayant Patil told the Times of India in an interview that the opposition was promised their suggestions would be included in the bill. On that assurance, the opposition did not submit any dissent notes. But when the bill was presented, those suggestions were completely ignored. In other words, the opposition was kept in the loop but ultimately their views were overlooked.

When the bill was passed in the Assembly, CPI(M) MLA Vinod Nikole was the only representative who openly expressed disagreement. Apart from him, no MLA from Congress, NCP, or Shiv Sena stood against the law in the house. However, when the bill went to the Legislative Council, the opposition formally protested, staged a walkout, and submitted a dissent note.

Overall, the Maharashtra government’s intent behind this law, which is being presented as a security measure, could actually pose a greater threat to dissent, opposition, and freedom of speech. At a time when tough laws like UAPA and MCOCA already exist in the country, another law whose definition could criminalize any form of protest raises serious questions. Is opposing, asking questions, participating in movements, or even posting on social media becoming a threat to the government?

Democracy does not only mean elections. Democracy means the right to speak, the right to dissent, and the freedom to question those in power. If any law weakens these things, calling it a security law is incorrect. Instead, we need to think about why such a law is being introduced. It is being brought in to weaken citizens — and what happens if citizens are weakened? Democracy will weaken. Democracy is, in theory, government by the people.

The Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024

On July 9, 2025, the Maharashtra government introduced the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 in the Assembly, which has drawn widespread criticism for its potential to infringe on civil liberties and criminalize dissent. Rights organizations, including Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), label the Bill an unconstitutional vehicle for state oppression, consolidating expansive powers that could curtail fundamental rights under the guise of public safety.

1. Definition and Criminalization of Dissent

The Bill emphasizes a framework where dissent is equated with danger. It employs vague terminology such as “left wing extremist organization” and “urban Naxal,” which could potentially classify various groups—including student unions and civil rights organizations—as unlawful without precise definitions. This ambiguity empowers the government to wield considerable discretion in labeling any form of dissent as a threat.

2. Sweeping Powers and Authoritarian Measures

The proposed legislation provides the executive with the authority to:

• Declare organizations unlawful without a fair legal process.
• Criminalize expected dissent through broadly defined “unlawful activities,” targeting speech and actions that merely suggest interference with public order.
• Enforce property seizures and evictions without judicial oversight, violating due process and facilitating executive-led expropriation.

3. Judicial Oversight Limitations

The Bill restricts judicial remedies by:

• Excluding lower courts’ jurisdiction over matters arising from its provisions, thereby limiting access to justice for marginalized groups.
• Instituting a non-transparent Advisory Board with composition favoring government compliance and lacking independence, which undermines judicial scrutiny.

4. Extensive Surveillance and Financial Repression

The legislation grants authorities substantial powers for:

• Financial surveillance and seizure of assets linked to declared unlawful organizations, bypassing standard judicial processes.
• Augmenting state scrutiny without the necessary checks and balances, echoing the punitive nature of existing terror and organized crime laws but lacking their national security context.

5. Insufficient Amendments and Legislative Process Flaws

Despite feedback and objections from opposition legislators and civil society, the Joint Committee made minimal amendments, maintaining core provisions that could facilitate repression under a misconstrued pretext of maintaining public safety.

• Amendments included:
  • Targeting definitions related to “radical-leftwing organizations.”
  • Changes to the composition of the Advisory Board.
  • Increasing the investigator’s rank to Deputy Superintendent of Police, yet failing to address the broader issues of executive overreach and lack of transparency.

6. A Legal Framework for Suppression

In essence, the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 is seen as a premeditated strategy to legally authorize political repression, as it amalgamates the most draconian features of existing laws without the necessary safeguards against abuse. Critics argue it undermines the constitutional framework that protects citizens’ rights, elevating the risks of arbitrary power and political persecution.

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, has faced significant criticism and is likely to be challenged legally.

The primary concerns revolve around its potential to infringe upon fundamental rights and its broad scope, which could lead to misuse.

The Bill has been criticized by various groups, including civil society organizations, legal experts, and opposition parties, who have raised concerns about its potential for misuse and its impact on civil liberties. The bill’s vague definitions of “unlawful activity” and “left-wing extremist organizations” are seen as particularly problematic, as they could be used to target dissent and peaceful protests.

Several sources indicate that legal challenges are anticipated. The Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi leader Prakash Ambedkar has announced plans to challenge the law in court, calling it “draconian and unconstitutional”. Civil society groups are also organizing protests and preparing for legal action.

The bill’s provisions, such as the power to declare organizations unlawful, criminalize association, and seize property, are seen as mirroring aspects of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) but with potentially lower thresholds for application, raising concerns about the erosion of due process and judicial oversight. The exclusion of lower courts from jurisdiction and the provision of immunity to state officials are also points of contention.

Constitutional Rights and Restrictions

The bill’s provisions, particularly those defining “unlawful activity” and allowing the government to designate organizations as unlawful, intersect with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, specifically:

• Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): The bill defines “unlawful activity” in broad terms, including actions or speech that “constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace, or tranquillity,” “interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law,” or “encourages or preaches disobedience to established law and its institutions.” These definitions are broad and could potentially criminalize legitimate dissent, criticism of the government, or the expression of unpopular opinions. Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech in the interests of, among other things, public order. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that such restrictions must be narrowly tailored and proportionate to the threat.
• Freedom to Form Associations (Article 19(1)(c)): The bill empowers the state government to designate organizations as unlawful and criminalizes membership in or support for such organizations. This directly impacts the right to form associations. Article 19(4) allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of, among other things, public order.
• Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): The bill’s provisions for preventive detention, seizure of property, and restrictions on access to justice raise concerns under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has held that any procedure that restricts these rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Precedents on Vagueness and Overbreadth

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of clarity and precision in laws that restrict fundamental rights. Several precedents are relevant here:

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized speech that caused “annoyance,” was “of menacing character,” or was “grossly offensive.”  The Court held that these terms were vague and open-ended, leading to a chilling effect on free speech. The Maharashtra bill’s use of terms like “menace,” “interfere,” and “tends to interfere” without clear definitions could face similar challenges.
• Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia (1960): The Supreme Court held that restrictions on freedom of speech and expression must have a proximate relationship or nexus with the threat to public order, and that a remote or hypothetical connection cannot constitute a reasonable restriction.  The bill’s provisions regarding actions that “tend to interfere” with public order may be challenged on this basis.

Precedents on Judicial Oversight and Due Process

The bill’s provisions regarding the designation of organizations as unlawful, the seizure of property, and the restrictions on judicial review raise concerns about due process and the separation of powers.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court held that Article 21 requires that any procedure that restricts the right to life and personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.  The bill’s lack of judicial oversight over the government’s powers and the restrictions on judicial review may be challenged under this precedent.
• Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court has emphasized the independence of the judiciary as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.  The bill’s provisions regarding the composition of the Advisory Board, which may not require judicial experience, and the government’s control over appointments and terms of service, could be challenged as undermining judicial independence.

Comparison with Existing Laws

The existence of other laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), raises questions about the necessity and potential for overlap and misuse of the new bill.

• UAPA: The UAPA is India’s primary anti-terror legislation. The Maharashtra bill’s provisions are similar to those in UAPA, but the bill’s definitions of “unlawful activity” are broader, and the threshold for invoking the law may be lower. This could lead to the criminalization of activities that are not covered by UAPA.
• MCOCA: MCOCA is a state law designed to combat organized crime. The new bill’s provisions may overlap with MCOCA, potentially leading to multiple charges and increased vulnerability for individuals.

Potential for Misuse

Civil society groups and legal experts have raised concerns about the potential for misuse of the bill. The broad definitions of “unlawful activity,” the lack of judicial oversight, and the restrictions on access to justice could be used to target political opponents, activists, and other dissenting voices.

• The CJP Team, Dissent Note: The alarming scope of Maharashtra’s Special Public Safety Bill, 2024: The CJP team has raised concerns that the bill’s vague terms like “left wing extremist organisation” and “urban Naxal” remain central to the Bill’s design, but are never defined, giving the state unchecked discretion to label student groups, protest movements, civil rights organisations, even opposition-linked collectives, as threats. 
• The Wire, As Maharashtra Govt Brings Bill Against ‘Urban Naxalism’, Activists Fear Criminalisation of Dissent: The Wire has reported that the bill criminalises any opposing stand taken against the “established law and its institutions”. 
• The Hindu, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Repressive, allows misuse, civil society: The Hindu has reported that the bill’s definition of ‘unlawful’ is broad and arbitrary, bringing into its net any ‘action taken by an individual or organisation whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation’. 

Based on these legal precedents and concerns, the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, faces significant legal challenges. The bill’s success in withstanding these challenges will depend on how the courts interpret its provisions and balance the state’s interest in maintaining public order with the protection of fundamental rights.

What do you think? Should such a law exist in the country or not? What impact could such a law have on your lives, on democracy? 

The bill may be read below.

The dissent note in Marathi may be read below:

Ref:

1. The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 as introduced in Assembly on December 18, 2024. [ https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_states/maharashtra/2024/Bill33of2024MH.pdf ]
2. Dissent Note: The alarming scope of Maharashtra’s Special Public Safety Bill, 2024. [ https://cjp.org.in/dissent-note-the-alarming-scope-of-maharashtras-special-public-safety-bill-2024/ ]
3. As Maharashtra Govt Brings Bill Against ‘Urban Naxalism’, Activists Fear Criminalisation of Dissent. [ https://m.thewire.in/article/government/as-maharashtra-govt-brings-bill-against-urban-naxalism-activists-fear-criminalisation-of-dissent]
4. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 Of 2012, Supreme Court of India, March 24, 2015. [ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/]
5. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, Supreme Court of India, January 25, 1978. [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/]
6. The Superintendent, Central Prison vs Ram Manohar Lohia, Supreme Court of India, January 21, 1960. [ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386353/]
7. Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record vs Union of India, Supreme Court of India, October 16, 2015. [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66970168/]
8. Molitics [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiYRQHZSN84]
9. https://www.epw.in/journal/2024/30/comment/state-insecurity-laws.html
   
   
   Also Read:

Bill Gates Predicts Hung’s Election and Civil War in America and How would Bill Gates know?

Why Bill Gates is Focusing on Drills for Emergency Preparedness?

How Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum are preparing for the possibility of the COVID-19 pandemic returning in 2025 – The Great Reset Agenda (Global Crisis)

Future Plandemic Ahead: Should air pollution be tackled by the World Health Organization and Bill Gates?

Recent Legal Proceedings Against Bill Gates in the Netherlands