Context-
Maharashtra Assembly recently passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill by a voice vote. The Bill seeks to provide the state with legal tools for the effective prevention of unlawful activities by extremist and similar organisations. While the government argues that this law is necessary to preserve public order and national security, civil society and legal experts have raised serious concerns about its broad scope and potential misuse.
Key Provisions of the MSPS Bill-
The MSPS Bill grants sweeping powers to the state government, particularly the ability to declare any organisation as "unlawful" if it is believed to be involved in activities deemed threatening to public order or institutional stability.
The Bill outlines four categories of offences:
1. Membership in an unlawful organisation;
2. Fundraising for such organisations;
3. Managing or assisting in their operations;
4. Committing any "unlawful activity", a term defined expansively.
Penalties under the Bill are stringent, ranging from 2 to 7 years of imprisonment and fines between ₹2 lakh and ₹5 lakh. The most serious offence — committing an "unlawful activity" — attracts seven years of imprisonment and a ₹5 lakh fine. Importantly, all offences are cognizable and non-bailable, giving police the authority to arrest without a warrant.
The definition of "unlawful activity" under the Bill is notably broad. It includes not just acts of violence, but also verbal or symbolic expression, signs, or representations that could be interpreted as endangering public order or interfering with the law.
Activities such as "practising disobedience", disrupting traffic or public communication, or collecting funds for protests could fall under this scope.
Constitutional and Legal Concerns
The MSPS Bill has drawn comparisons to central laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, these are extraordinary laws with high thresholds for action, often related to terrorism, national sovereignty, or large-scale money laundering.
Legal scholars have raised concerns that the vague and sweeping definitions under the MSPS Bill could criminalise legitimate dissent and peaceful protests, infringing on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution.
For instance, the phrase "encouraging disobedience to the law" could potentially apply to any activist or citizen criticising government policy.
In the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court clarified that speech critical of the government cannot be penalised unless it incites violence. The MSPS Bill appears to blur that constitutional distinction.
Unlike ordinary criminal laws, which operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", special laws like MSPS often dilute these safeguards, raising the risk of arbitrary detention and misuse by authorities.
Conclusion
While the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill aims to bolster the state’s ability to combat extremism, it must strike a careful balance between security and civil liberties. Given its wide-ranging definitions and potential for overreach, the law will likely be tested in the courts and in the court of public opinion.
