Maharastra has become centre of urban naxal networkMUMBAI: The Maharashtra government on Tuesday dubbed as “fanciful’’ “irrelevant an superfluous” the contention by political parties Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (CPI) and social activists of any likely misuse of its new Special Public Security Act and said neither petitioner showed how it has impingned their rights and hence they lack the requisite locus to challenge its constitutionality.“ Maharashtra, because of its highest urban population has ‘ become center of Maoist urban network’’ said the State and lacked a legal framework of public security Act to ban frontal organisations like other affected States, the government said in its reply to a batch of petitions.The perceived misuse of the Act is tackled within the Act itself said the State. The Advisory board will be headed by retired HC Judge and only after confirmation or by advisory board can an organisation be ‘banned’ and anycase it is subject to review before the HC as well.THE MSPSA 2025The Act defines unlawful activity as:
- Threats to public order, peace, tranquility and overall maintenance of govt machinery to keep law and order;
- Deterring public servant with criminal force or show of such force, from his official duty
- Encouraging or preaching disobedience towards law, institutions
- Clandestinely opposing legal institutions
- Violence against security forces, govt servants in area of influence
Banning an organisation:District wise too;Who can authorise prosecution sanction: Additional DGP rank officer or police chiefWhat Petition says
- The petitions have raised various issues including:
- Lack of meaningful public consultation and transparency in functioning of the joint committee
- Disconnect between the Statement of objects and reasons and the impugned act
- The law is not limited to “left wing extremist organisations”
- Provision of a non-judicial advisory board
- Section 2 (f), 2 (g) , 3 and 8 are void for vagueness, manifest arbitrariness and for conferring unguided discretion to State authorities.
- Sections 9, 10 and 11 confer excessive and unguided powers of attachment, forfeiture and dispossession of property without judicial safeguards
What the petition seeks· To set aside the Maharashtra SPSA as unconstitutional as it violates articles 14 (right to equality) (19(1) (a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1) (c) freedom to form associations, unions, cooperative societies) , 21 (right to life and liberty) and 300A (right to property) of Constitution of India and void at inception.What state saysThat validity of any legislation can be challenged only on two grounds and no other ground — (i) that the legislature which has enacted the legislation has no legislative competence to enact such a law in terms of legislative scheme under the Constitution and (ii) that the legislation violates any of fundamental rights guaranteed by and under the Constitution.
- Allegation of violation of Article 300A is a figment of imagination
- The Act deals with ‘public order’ and hence state is empowered to frame the law.
Other statesThere are several other States in the country which have enacted laws similar to the Maharashtra Act.
- Chattisgarh: The constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Act known as chhattisgarh vishesh Jana surakshaAdhi Niyam 2005 was upheld by the high court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur on April 11, 2014
- Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992
- Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1998
- Telangana Public Security Act, 1992
Frontal organization data provided by Ministry of Home Affairs
- 64:Maharashtra has highest number of frontal organization in India
- Andhra Pradesh (19 organisation- banned 7),
- Telangana ( 29 – banned 7),
- Chhattisgarh (11- banned 11)
- Odisha (7- banned 7)
- Jharkhand (14 – banned 14)
The Petitioners argue that procedure before don’t satisfy natural justice needs nor of an independent judicial bodyThe reply by the State Home department deputy Secretary Pritamkumar Jawale also cited the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) fund entitlement under the Home Affairs Ministry to tackle Left Wing Extremism affected areas and said non-enactment of the law would impact such funds “crucial for fighting Maoist battle.’’The petitions, one filed by Congress Party and CPI, claimed the state law would “suppress constitutionally protected peaceful and legitimate dissent”. The definition of ‘unlawful activity’ in the new law is “overbroad and vague’’ and do not fall within the permissible reasonable restrictions the Constitution provides for under article 19 (2) and significantly and unwarrantedly “criminalises conduct exhibiting mere tendency of .The singularly problematic aspect of the new law, the petitions argue is that it “ confers uncanalised and arbitrary powers to the executive to declare an organization ‘unlawful’,’’ without following necessary legal steps.Maharashtra advocate general Milind Sathe and government pleader Anjali Helekar who tendered the affidavit viewed a group of petitions as “frivolous, non-maintainable’’ and sought their dismissal.“A person cannot file a Petition challenging constitutional validity for his curiosity or for academic exercise and must have a real grievance and legal injury to maintain a Petition,’’ said the State’s reply . The Chief Justice and Justice Advait Sethna posted the matter to October 16th when senior counsel Gayatri Singh for INC and Navroz Seervai for the other petitions Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Forum Against Oppression of Women would strat their submissions. The NGO PUCL contended the State law would muzzle dissent and it lacks procedural safeguards that are a pre-requisite under constitutional jurisprudence.The state contended the law provides for “an effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations.”The State said the background and basis for enacting the MSPSA stems from the Maoist or “ Left Wing Extremist Frontal organisation’’ functioning in Maharashtra since 1984. In 2004 “ Maoist Splinter Groups which were banned in various parts of the country became active by merging into Peoples Work Group (PWG) in Dandakaaranya Region of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, and formed CPI (Maoist) which was banned under UAPA in 2009. Till 2012, Maoists targeted their spread to urban centres like Mumbai, Pune, Nashik and Nagpur, said the State and added in 2012 “48 mass frontal organisations’’ were monitored which led to arrests of urban naxals. The State cited the 2018 Elgar Parishad case of alleged Maoist links andThe State’s reply said the existing anti -Terror law (UAPA) has not proved effective to deal with clandestine operations and mass movements who belie their legal façade to preach extremism and recruitment for anti-national activities.The reply backs its Law saying, “States facing similar threats-such as Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Odisha have already enacted similar Public Security Acts which have withstood judicial scrutiny.’’
