The Maharashtra assembly has passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPSB), making it the latest addition to a growing arsenal of banning legislations that cloak sweeping state power to curb the fundamental right to freedom of association with the language of security.From its title to its objective and provisions, the Bill is shrouded in layers of ambiguity. The law is titled as a measure to counter the ‘unlawful activities’ of Left Wing Extremist organisations and ‘other similar organisations’. Left Wing Extremism (LWE) has been used in the official state narrative to refer to Naxalism, but as a category it has not been defined in any law so far. The Bill not only uses LWE as a criminal category in a statute without defining its limits, thereby allowing the label to be tagged on associations and individuals arbitrarily, but also criminalises ‘extremism’ selectively, ie, criminalised in the context of Left ideologies while leaving out others.The ‘Object and Reasons’ of the Bill worded in the language of curbing the ‘menace of Naxalism in urban areas’, is couched in the rhetoric of the politically charged and mediatised category of the ‘Urban Naxal’, a term often deployed to delegitimise dissent, by framing dissident voices through the logic of guilt by association. Who then, is the target of this legislation, is an ever-expanding question. It defines the offence of ‘unlawful activity’ in broad and vague terms, granting the state government discretionary power to proscribe organisations by declaring them ‘unlawful’ based on their alleged involvement in such activities. It enables penal action against individuals on the basis of association with these organisations. The Bill also empowers the government to notify and take possession of premises, as well as to attach, seize, or forfeit property purportedly linked to banned organisations.The Bill’s passage in July 2025 concludes its yearlong gestation period during which it was introduced thrice in the Assembly, referred to a Joint Committee, and subjected to public consultation ostensibly aimed at improving its provisions. The final version, however, included only three amendments, a cosmetic tweaking that now includes LWE in its title and preamble, the inclusion of judicial officers on the Advisory Board that confirms bans, and an upgrade in the rank of the investigating officer, while the core provisions of the bill remain untouched.People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) in its report ‘Insecurity by Law: A Critique of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill in the Context of India’s Banning Regime’ has examined why, despite the existence of expansive legislations such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which empowers the Union government to ban organisations, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act (CLA), which enables states to do the same, the Maharashtra government has chosen to enact yet another law with substantively similar powers. The answer, we believe, lies in convenience in executing bans and creating localized control, which the new Bill enables.Casting the net wider The content of the Bill is a near replication of the earlier state enacted Public Security Acts (PSA) such as Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and like them, it defines ‘unlawful activity’ widely. It criminalises not only specific actions but also the mere ‘tendency’ towards such actions, thereby lowering the threshold for an action to become criminal. Acts not intended to effect an action can also be interpreted as having a ‘tendency’ for the same, which makes intention to commit a crime irrelevant. Additionally, it employs vague categories such as ‘indulgence,’ ‘encouragement,’ and ‘interference’ as constitutive of criminal conduct. On the very wide spectrum of what counts as ‘unlawful activity’, constitutionally recognized legitimate civil activities may be termed as unlawful. For instance, ‘menace to public order’ and ‘tendency to interfere with maintenance of public order or with the administration of law’, can include a non-violent public protest, ‘indulging in vandalism’ could also see a student who draws graffiti on buildings being implicated under the law, or ‘acts generating apprehension in the public’ or ‘disrupting communications by road’ could outlaw a dharna. It also penalises acts ‘preaching/encouraging disobedience to law,’ which effectively opens the door to criminalising non-violent forms of political expression, such as civil disobedience or legitimate criticism of legislation. Its power to ban ‘unlawful organisations’ involved in ‘unlawful activity’ is the same as those vested in the Central Government under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). However, rather than merely extending the central government’s powers under the UAPA to the state level, MSPSB also broadens the scope of what constitutes ‘unlawful activity’. In effect, the Bill permits a wider range of activities to be penalised, and organisations associated with them to be proscribed, than would be permissible under the already problematic and ambiguous definition of ‘unlawful activity’ in the UAPA. The Bill also accretes more power to the state government as compared with the CLA, which also enables the state government to ban organisations, but does not additionally penalise ‘unlawful activity’. CLA is only a banning legislation, MSPSB is a legislation that both bans organisations and penalises activities. Once an organisation has been banned for its involvement in the widely defined ‘unlawful activity’, the Bill provides for four different classes of offences for individuals associated with these organisations: the first penalises a member taking part in activities of unlawful organisations, contributing or collecting funds for the organisation. The second deals with acts done by non-members concerning the same acts mentioned in the first. The third includes any act of management or assistance done concerning the unlawful organisation by members and non-members. It also covers the promotion of their meetings through any medium or device. This could very well be used to target people who share posters or pamphlets of events or organisations that could be deemed unlawful. The last section penalises conspiracies, attempts and actual commissions of unlawful activity. Given the indeterminate scope of what can be brought under the purview of this law in the name of ‘unlawful activity, the Bill casts the net wider. The business of banning made more convenient The powers of banning under the Bill, like UAPA, allow the government to declare an organisation unlawful on the basis of its ‘opinion’, and the government does not need to provide any demonstrable evidence at the time of declaration. While the law requires that the grounds for such a declaration be specified, it also empowers the government to withhold those grounds citing public interest. The ban becomes effective only if it is confirmed by an advisory board, which consists of a high court judge among others, calling the aggrieved party for hearing, within three months. This mechanism, however, operates post-facto as the proviso permits the executive to enforce the ban immediately upon publication in the Gazette, without confirmation from the Board, if it records urgency to do so, in writing. In effect, this allows the Government to suspend the Fundamental Right to association, through an executive fiat, bypassing prior judicial scrutiny, at least for three months.What aggravates concerns about the banning provisions under the Bill is the mechanism for extending such bans- a feature that simultaneously makes the law attractive to the government by offering logistical ease. The duration of ban is longer in UAPA, which originally stipulated a two-year term for the validity of the ban but was amended to five years in 2013. Beyond the five years, the ban can only be re-imposed under UAPA by constituting a fresh Tribunal (the term for Advisory Board under UAPA) which would conduct a fresh hearing. MSPSB imposes ban for a period of one year, but can be extended indefinitely. The provision for extension of a ban under the Bill merely requires ‘reviewing the positions’, without clarifying whether such a review must involve the Advisory Board. Such renewals risk the possibility of perpetual proscription without fresh justification. Though UAPA tribunal decisions have demonstrated that bans are almost invariably confirmed, and PUDR’s earlier reports on ban on SIMI under UAPA, show that rather than functioning as an internal check on executive action, which the tribunal is intended in theory, it has largely facilitated the process of banning. But the design of the UAPA still incorporates a bureaucratic check upon the expiry of the duration of ban on ‘unlawful association’. What is of essence is the procedural rigmarole that tribunals bring about. One of the tribunals in 2012, in deciding the ban on SIMI, had recommended extending the duration of bans from two to five years, citing the high costs associated with constituting and operating such tribunals.In contrast, MSPSB in the absence of any prescribed procedure for such extensions, eliminates even these minimal fiscal and procedural burdens. It brings about administrative convenience, making the exercise of banning easier and less accountable.Bringing powers closer to homeThe powers to notify, attach, and forfeit property under the PSAs are aligned with special laws like UAPA, but with further dilution of checks. MSPSB, like other PSAs, places the power to notify bans directly in the hands of the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, empowering the local executive, unlike the UAPA where power to notify bans lies with the Union government. Under ordinary law, attachments, possession, forfeiture, etc. require court supervision, seizure confirmation, and a hearing. Even UAPA allows appeals against these powers with the District judge. But under the Maharashtra Bill appeals against the exercise of these extraordinary powers, are to be made only with the executive – the state government itself. Additionally, while UAPA does not provide for forfeiture of funds of unlawful organisations but only of terrorist organisations, the Maharashtra Bill extends that power to be used against unlawful organisations. The Bill evades court monitoring and allows the executive to both initiate and decide such actions, leaving affected individuals with no independent recourse. With a limited scope for aggrieved party to approach the district judge under UAPA, and the absence of such a provision under MSPSB with only internal government review, the Bill emerge as a law with a certain executive-bureaucratic ease for those who use it, creating a regime with minimal oversight.Continuation of a troubling legacyThe predecessor PSAs of the MSPSB have demonstrated a history of targeting dissent, ideological opposition, and civil society mobilisation. Andhra Pradesh enacted its PSA in 1992 and banned the People’s War Group (PWG). But on the pretext of association with PWG, the law was used against mass organisations such as the Radical Students Union (RSU), Rythu Coolie Sangham (a peasants’ organisation), Singareni Karmika Samakhya (a mine workers’ union), and the Revolutionary Writers’ Association. The targeting extended to even lawyers representing accused persons, journalists reporting on police excesses, and even cultural troupes performing songs critical of state violence. The act of representing, speaking, or singing about Naxalism became grounds for proscription under this law. Similarly, in Chhattisgarh, the Special Public Security Act (CSPSA) enacted in 2005, followed a similar trajectory, being used against critical voices, human rights defenders, including the vice-president of PUCL, Binayak Sen. It has been used against activists and organisations that have been protesting for the rights of adivasi communities in Chhattisgarh. Most recently in November 2024, the Chhattisgarh government declared the Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM) as an ‘unlawful organisation’ under CSPSA, claiming that it was a threat to public order.Like its predecessors, MSPSB strikes at the heart of the fundamental right to association. The right to association, inherently, is a right asserted by a collective. It disenchants state power precisely because it enables people to come together, build solidarities, and exercise collective agency. It creates spaces where power can be questioned and held accountable. It is through associations that people as a collective resist domination and envision alternatives to unjust forms of status quo. Harish Dhawan and Paramjeet Singh are secretaries, People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR).