Bill of wrongs (GS Paper 3, Internal Security)
Introduction
- Recently, the Maharashtra government introduced the Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing inadequacies in existing anti-terror laws to combat what it terms as "urban Naxalism."
Provisions of the Controversial Bill
- The Bill grants the state authority to criminalize "unlawful activity" by individuals and imposes severe penalties on organizations deemed unlawful.
- While reminiscent of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1976, the cornerstone anti-terror legislation, the Maharashtra Bill expands the scope of unlawful activity to include vague terms such as posing a threat to public order, obstructing law administration, instilling fear in the public, and advocating disobedience to the law.
- These broad definitions raise concerns that legitimate dissent, protests, or criticisms of government policies could fall under the purview of criminality.
The Political Connotation of "Urban Naxals"
- Introducing the term "urban Naxals" into legal discourse, the Bill alleges an increase of Naxalite influence in urban areas beyond traditionally affected regions.
- This term, often politically charged, has been controversially used to target intellectuals, activists, and dissenters.
- The Bill’s rationale suggests that any form of questioning or opposition to government actions could be equated with supporting Naxalite activities.
- Moreover, the Bill empowers authorities to evict accused individuals from their residences and seize their bank accounts even before a trial, without distinguishing between active participants in alleged unlawful activities and those merely associated with them.
Judicial Stance Against Draconian Laws
- Judicial bodies have consistently cautioned against the overreach of stringent laws.
- The Delhi High Court, in the aftermath of the 2019 Delhi riots, emphasized that severe penal provisions must be narrowly construed.
- It stressed that terrorist activities should transcend ordinary crimes and be beyond the capacity of regular law enforcement agencies to handle effectively.
- Similarly, in cases related to the Bhima Koregaon violence, the Supreme Court granted bail to several accused individuals, asserting that mere possession of literature advocating violence does not automatically constitute criminal offenses under the UAPA.
Upholding Democratic Values
- The Maharashtra Bill threatens the foundational pact between the state and its citizens, which guarantees the right to dissent and engage in debate.
- Its introduction just before the prorogation of the assembly session, ahead of state elections, suggests a tactical move.
- While the Bill may not be enacted in the current political climate, vigilance is necessary to prevent its revival or similar initiatives in the future.
Conclusion
- Maharashtra’s proposed security legislation, with its ambiguous definitions and potential to criminalize lawful activities, poses a significant threat to democratic freedoms.
- While its immediate enactment seems unlikely, civil society must remain vigilant to ensure that legislative efforts do not undermine fundamental rights in the guise of maintaining public security.
- Balancing security concerns with civil liberties is crucial for upholding India’s democratic principles and ensuring a just legal framework for all citizens.
