Maharashtra Passes Bill to Curb Left-Wing Extremism and Urban Maoism

The Maharashtra Assembly has passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, a stringent piece of legislation aimed at curbing Left-Wing Extremism, via a voice vote on Thursday. The Bill, introduced by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, seeks to “provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left-Wing Extremist organizations or similar organizations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” This move has triggered intense debate, particularly over the definition and interpretation of key terms like "unlawful activities", "Left-Wing Extremism", and "Urban Naxal", raising concerns among Opposition members and civil liberties advocates about potential misuse.

Fadnavis assured the Assembly that the legislation would not be misused against political protesters or civil society activists, emphasizing that it specifically targets Maoist-linked groups that threaten constitutional order. He warned of the growing threat of “urban Maoism”, claiming that while traditional Maoist activity had declined—down from four districts to two talukas in Maharashtra—urban cadres were attempting to influence youth and civil groups in cities to act against the democratic system. He stressed that the law targets those promoting armed struggle and seeking to undermine constitutional governance, not legitimate dissent or Left-leaning political parties.

The Bill introduces punishment ranging from two to seven years in prison, and broadly defines “unlawful activity” to include actions, words, signs, or representations—spoken, written, or otherwise—that pose a danger to public order, interfere with administration of law, or disturb peace and tranquility. Such vague and wide definitions have led to apprehensions among Opposition leaders. Congress MLA Nana Patole pointed out that despite receiving over 12,000 public suggestions and objections, only three were accepted. Rohit Pawar, Bhaskar Jadhav, and Varun Sardesai echoed concerns that key terms in the Bill were opaque and lacked clear legal definitions, leaving room for misinterpretation and potential overreach.

V

inod Nikole, the sole CPI (M) MLA in the Assembly, strongly opposed the Bill, stating that while violent extremism should be condemned, existing laws like MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) and UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) were already in place to address such threats. “I am the only MLA from the Left party... but I am opposing this Bill as it can be misused,” Nikole said. Similarly, other leaders questioned the necessity of a new law when the UAPA already allows for prosecution of terror-related activities.

Addressing these concerns, Fadnavis clarified that the law is not directed against legitimate Left parties such as the CPI or CPI(M), citing that the CPI (Maoist) was banned by the UPA government in 2009, and even West Bengal, then under a Communist-led government, supported such a move. He reiterated the distinction between dissent and extremism, noting that protests and criticism of the government were constitutionally protected, and any associated violence would be dealt with under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), not the new security law.

The Chief Minister also noted that several organizations already banned in Telangana, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh have their head offices in Maharashtra, exploiting the absence of a similar preventive law in the state. He added that the Centre had encouraged all states to adopt such laws to supplement the UAPA, which only applies to active terror cases and does not allow preemptive banning of subversive groups. Without this Bill, Maharashtra was becoming a safe haven for such organizations, he warned.

The Bill will now move to the Legislative Council (upper house) for further debate and approval. Maharashtra thus becomes the fifth Indian state to pass such a law targeting Left-Wing Extremism, following states like Telangana and Odisha. While the intent, according to the government, is internal security and the protection of democratic institutions, critics caution that broad legal definitions, if unchecked, may undermine civil liberties and stifle dissent under the pretext of national security.

Explore more on UPSC Content

Click for Daily Quotes:

Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X.