The Anatomy of Maharashtra's Repressive Law Against 'Urban Naxals'

Maharashtra's new bill threatens civil liberties, sparking widespread opposition and concerns over democracy.

The proposed law has cast a shadow on civil liberties in the state of Maharashtra, known for its strong people’s movements.

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

For over a year, the Mahayuti government was determined to pass the controversial Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024.

After the opposition it faced when the Bill was first introduced without any public consultation in July 2024, the Bill was reintroduced in December 2024 and immediately referred to a 21-member Joint Select Committee. An overwhelming number of public objections were received by the committee. Ninety percent of the 12,750 objections reportedly opposed the Bill. Opposition parties criticised the Bill on various platforms and also before the committee.

However, perfunctory amendments were made to the Bill without addressing the strong objections, and the Bill was ushered in by the Legislative Assembly on 11 July 2025, followed by the legislative council.

The proposed law has cast a shadow on civil liberties in the state of Maharashtra, known for its strong people’s movements. Expectedly, civil society organisations are at the forefront in opposition to the law, having found the proposed law repressive.

Both the stated purpose of the law and its provisions are deeply concerning and threaten the very fabric of democracy. As it awaits the Governor’s assent before it becomes the law of the land, some troubling aspects of the law require urgent attention.

Broad Definitions That Criminalise Dissent and Protest

The definitions are loosely-worded, broad, and sweeping, making it possible for any form of protest and dissent to be criminalised under this law.

The definition of “unlawful activity” includes, amongst others, 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 or otherwise, which constitutes danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility, or interferes or tends to interfere with public order, or encourages or preaches disobedience to established law and its institutions.

Even collecting or money or goods to carry out any such activity is rendered unlawful.

This would cover any kind of participation, organising or legitimate expression of protest over any government action. Forms of speech and expression involved in journalistic work, writings, social activism, public speaking, cultural performances, education and awareness could also be treated as unlawful activity if its content is found problematic by the government.

What is perceived as a menace to public order, peace, and tranquillity, or would tend to interfere with public order, would be entirely as per their discretion.

The words encouraging or preaching disobedience of law or its institutions is again vague, and any striking workers group or act of civil disobedience could be deemed an unlawful activity, inviting action under this law.

Targeting Informal Groups and Civil Society

Even the definition of organisation is kept amorphous, so as to include within its ambit, any group, whether formal or not. Under the Bill, an unlawful organisation is defined as any organisation that indulges in an “unlawful activity” or in pursuance of its objects, abets, assists or gives aid to or encourages directly or indirectly through any medium, devices or otherwise, any “unlawful activity.”

Under the existing definition, even loose campaigns or gatherings of individuals could be labelled a group.

Taken to its logical end, even the mere sharing of a poster of a campaign on social media could amount to encouragement through use of any medium or device; protesting on site against displacement or tree cutting could amount to disobedience; the raising of funds to support a displaced community could amount to giving aid.

Meanwhile, the procedure provided under the Bill to declare an organisation unlawful suffers from lack of checks and safeguards, even as the government can do it at whim.

The notification declaring organisations unlawful can be extended indefinitely from year to year. However, the burden to disprove such declaration falls squarely on the organisation or individual, exposing them to the threat of incarceration even before they are given an opportunity of hearing.

The ambiguity ingrained in the law provides extensive discretion to interpret and apply the provisions, increasing the chances of arbitrary and selective application, and hence also of targeting and misuse against activists, protestors, and dissenting citizens.

The other provisions of the proposed law which involve actual crimes using criminal force are covered under the other laws anyway, so clearly this law’s USP appears to be that it paves the way for criminalisation of these vague, democratic activities in the public space.

It is hence capable of being used to stifle dissent and to vilify groups and individuals involved in such struggles as extremist. The labelling of such groups and individuals as Naxal or extremist would also delegitimise the cause and activism they undertake.

Draconian Powers and the Risk of State Overreach

The substantive provisions suffer from the same malaise and are draconian, giving extensive powers to the police to enter premises, conduct raids, and seize articles merely on orders of the government.

They provide unbridled powers to the District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police to notify a place to be a site for unlawful activities and take possession of property and even forfeit or dispose off such property pending trial and prior to establishing guilt. The sweeping powers given to the authorities under this law to take such punitive action can lead to injustice to not just those accused but also their family and friends.

Given the experience in cases under other draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), where the trial is grossly delayed and bail is withheld—especially given the stigmatic nature of such terror-like charges—the injustice could be multifold.

In the recent case of acquittal of all accused in the 7/11 train blasts case under UAPA, MCOCA, and other laws, the prolonged incarceration of 19 years and its multiple impacts, including the stigma and suffering faced by the family, is immeasurable and cannot be adequately compensated.

Similarly, the tag of being “Naxal” and “left extremist” that comes with being implicated under such law, even before such charge is proven, can pose serious risks and hurdles to the family. It could affect all aspects of their lives, denying them their basic existential rights, like their right to housing, livelihood etc. Hence, these lack of safeguards have grave implications.

The 'Urban Naxal' Narrative and Political Targeting

In order to justify the need for this law, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis from the ruling BJP had announced that while Naxalism had been significantly reduced to only two tehsils of Maharashtra, a specific legislation was needed to deal with “urban naxals”.

The words “urban naxals” need no introduction. It is a propaganda term now popularly used to brand ‘city-based’ activists, dissenters, and political opponents, as conspirators acting against the government. In the Bhima Koregaon conspiracy case, a dedicated media campaign had ensued to vilify and label the human rights defenders as “urban naxals” and create a mandate for their prolonged incarceration.

These words, along with others like “anti-national”, “sickular”, “liberandu” etc have since become a common slang used against activists and dissenters of the right-wing government’s policies or actions, irrespective of whether they identify as politically left or communist. Unrestrained labelling on social media and media trial is now becoming commonplace in all such cases.

The label “urban naxal” carries with it prejudicial implications of continued criminalisation, risk, and ostracisation, which can extend to other members of the family and people by association.

So, bringing in a law on this faulty premise was nothing but an attempt to legitimise the false propaganda and broaden the net to include any citizen who dares to speak against the policies or actions of the current government.

A Dangerous Step Backwards

When first released, the Bill claimed to provide for more effective prevention of unlawful activities of individuals and organisations, its purpose resembling the UAPA.

The need for ‘more’ effective prevention, inspite of there being three laws already in use in the state – UAPA, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA), and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 (BNS) – with identical offences and similar provisions, was explained by Fadnavis.

When quizzed he stated in the media that the UAPA can be invoked to deal with ‘active naxalism’ and not ‘passive naxalism’, so the Bill was being brought to address the latter.

Obviously, crimes, including incitement to crime, and any conspiracy or attempt to commit them are all ‘active’ offences. They are covered under all the above three criminal laws. So, this explanation takes away any remaining doubt.

It attempts to reveal the purpose of this law – to criminalise thoughts and opinions instead of actions, feelings instead of attempts, and most importantly suspicions of either, instead of actual crimes.

If so, it is antithetical to criminal law, it would amount to punishment in the absence of a real “crime”.

Following the objections received by them, the Committee had revised the object of the law to “a Bill to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of Left Extremist organisations or similar organisations”.

Here also, the singling out of “left” extremist organisations among any other kind of extremist organisations without providing proper justification for the same, while themselves declaring that Naxalism is in fact on a decline in the state, only raises further suspicion.

However, even that is just a bogey, the wordings of the law not only provide room to label any group left extremist but also to implicate any individual as a member of such group without any real association. 

In Maharashtra, several right-wing Hindutva groups and their coalitions like Sakal Hindu Samaj have intensified their activities in the last few years through inciteful hate speeches, provocative rallies being held across the state where demands for Hindu Rashtra and inciteful calls for the destruction of places of worship and killings of minorities have been openly made. Incidents of communal hate crimes have also been reported, with some cases accompanied by allegations of the involvement of members of right-wing groups.

According to the India Hate Lab Reports, Maharashtra recorded the highest number of hate speeches in 2023 with 118 events, which rose to 210 events in 2024.

However, similar intent or urgency is missing when it comes to addressing the actual crimes being committed by certain groups, to ensure public order and safety of citizens. If, in fact, rising extremism was a concern and a more effective law was needed to prevent it, which was not covered under other existing laws, it could have been uniformly applied across the board.

Chilling Effect on Dissent and Democratic Participation

There is not only no need for any such overbroad law, it would mark a major regression in our constitutional protections. The provisions of this Bill have the potential to take away the existing tools of non-violent protest available to citizens and provide unchecked power to the state.

Moreover, the chilling effect that such a law can produce, may silence citizens into withdrawing from participation in democratic processes, taking a step back from their fundamental duties as active citizens and exercising their constitutional rights. At this crucial juncture when the ensuring of inter-generational equity is squarely dependent on our participation in democracy, this loss would be immeasurable and cannot be allowed.

(The author is a Bombay High Court advocate who has been practicing law for over 15 years. She is also National secretary at the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)