Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, presented in the state assembly, increases the state’s actions against what it labels as “urban naxalism.” This law has sparked concern among human rights advocates and activists who worry it might suppress opposing views and restrict fundamental liberty.
THE ISSUES:
- Suppression of Freedom of Speech and Expression: The proposed legislation suppresses the right to freedom of speech and expression. It makes it illegal to engage in gatherings and actions that may be interpreted as supporting groups, even if done unintentionally.
- Vague and Overbroad Definitions: The legislation does not contain definite descriptions of “illegal behavior” and “illicit groups ” encompassing various peaceful and lawful actions. This lack of clarity could lead to misinterpretation by advocates for human rights and community service providers.
- Harsh Penalties and Arbitrary Arrests: The legislation proposed a maximum seven-year jail term and substantial fines for involvement in or backing illegal groups. Attending gatherings or offering instruction could result in random apprehensions and imprisonments.
- Seizure of Properties and Assets: Law enforcement agencies have been given the authority to confiscate the possessions and assets of individuals and groups considered illegal. This encompasses the power to remove individuals from their residences and workplaces and remove their belongings, disrupting activists’ activities.
- Impact on Human Rights Work: The proposed legislation challenges the work of human rights advocates and legal professionals, especially those operating in tribal regions, conflict areas, and locations where marginalized communities face frequent atrocities. It can potentially deem their work unlawful as they strive to provide education and assistance to these groups under existing legal regulations.
- Historical Context and Judicial Failures: There have been cases where laws were misused to detain activists and lawyers without evidence of wrongdoing. For example, the incidents of arrests related to Bhima Koregaon highlight how these laws have been abused to silence dissent and go after individuals fighting for justice.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Set up a system where judges can review the actions carried out under the law. This might require judges to approve arrests, property confiscations, and other penalties. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Shoma Sens case stressed that just attending a meeting is not a crime, underscoring the importance of oversight to avoid unjust arrests.
- Clear and Narrow Definitions: Revise the legislation to provide specific definitions for terms such as “unlawful activity” and “unlawful organization” to avoid misinterpretation and potential abuse. Article 19(2) states that the limitations on freedom of speech and expression must be reasonably clear and narrowly defined to prevent control.
- Protection of Human Rights Defenders: Introduce specific provisions to protect human rights defenders, journalists, and lawyers from harassment and wrongful prosecution under the Bill. The Supreme Court’s rulings in cases like Vernon Gonsalves and Sudha Bhardwaj highlight the need for safeguards to protect individuals working in conflict zones and advocating for marginalized communities.
- Mandatory Review by Select Committees: Ensure that select committees review any proposed amendments or new security laws before passing. This allows for thorough scrutiny and public consultation. Sending bills to select committees for detailed examination is a well-established parliamentary procedure that ensures comprehensive review and stakeholder engagement.
- Periodic Review and Sunset Clauses: The Bill should include provisions for periodic review and sunset clauses to ensure that its necessity and impact are regularly assessed and that it does not become a permanent tool for repression. The Law Commission has recommended periodic reviews of laws to ensure they remain relevant and do not unnecessarily infringe on civil liberties.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 appears to be a draconian measure aimed at curbing dissent under the guise of combating Naxalism. By targeting human rights activists and lawyers, the state risks undermining the very democratic principles it seeks to protect, thereby creating an environment of fear and repression.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 What do you understand by the concept of “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. 2014
Q.2 The Indian government has recently strengthened the anti-terrorism laws by amending the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the NIA Act. Analyze the changes in the context of the prevailing security environment while discussing the scope and reasons for opposing the UAPA by human rights organizations. 2019
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Examine the objectives and potential impact of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, in curbing urban Naxalism. Discuss the legal and ethical considerations associated with such legislation.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word