Despite existing laws that comprehensively address the threat of terrorism in the country, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Maharashtra government last week introduced yet another bill – the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill – claiming it will tackle the “urban footprint of Naxalism” in the state. The state government, especially under the leadership of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, has long flirted with the idea of legally bringing the term “Urban Naxalism” within the ambit of law.In 2018, when human rights defenders were arrested in the highly contentious Elgar Parishad case, this undefined and unclear term was widely used to criminalise activism. The term now is just a step away from coming within the bounds of law.It has already been passed in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and also the Legislative Council. It will soon be sent to the Governor for his assent, following which it will become law.The bill, initially introduced in the monsoon session last year, could not be passed as the assembly session was prorogued. It was introduced later in December last year during the winter session. But following extensive criticism and pushback from civil liberties groups and opposition parties, it was sent to the state legislature’s joint select committee.But again this year, on July 9, Chief Minister Fadnavis tabled the bill in the Assembly, and it was passed with a majority voice vote following a two-hour-long discussion on it. The joint select committee, notably comprising both ruling and opposition leaders, received over 12,000 suggestions and objections over the past many months, yet the final bill accepted only three changes to the bill.Bill criminalises any opposing stand taken against the ‘established law and its institutions’The first amendment, along with changes to the preamble and title, removed the term “individual” from the bill. The introduction to the amended Bill says that “since the Bill intends to destroy Urban Naxalism, the Committee opined to bring clarity on this aspect…” It also says the bill is introduced to handle “unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations…”The second amendment is brought to clause 5(2) of the Bill, which had earlier said that “the Advisory Board shall consist of three persons who are or have been or qualified to be appointed as judge of the High Court. The Government shall appoint the members and designate one of them as the Chairperson.”Now, the committee has suggested that the Board shall consist of a chairperson who is or has been a judge of the high court, along with two members, of which one shall be retired judge and another shall be a government pleader of the high court appointed by the state government. This change, experts say, gives the state government a chance to have at least one person of their preference.The third amendment was introduced to clause 15(2) of the old Bill. Now, instead of an officer not below the rank of sub inspector, the new Bill suggests that the investigation it should be entrusted to officers of the rank of deputy superintendent of police.The offences under this Bill attracts a jail term of two to seven years, along with fines ranging from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh.The bill empowers a district magistrate and police commissioner to notify any place that might come to be used for an unlawful activity by an unlawful organisation. The magistrate and the commissioner, under this Bill can take possession of movable property. The Opposition, which although did not oppose the bill in the assembly have pointed that this provision could lead to misuse. They have demanded that the role be handed over to a judicial magistrate instead of an executive magistrate.The Bill also criminalises any opposing stand taken against the “established law and its institutions”.Names of ‘frontal organisations’ not providedFadnavis, justifying the need for a special Act, claimed, “The other four states (Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha, where a version of this law already exists) have banned 48 frontal organisations. But Maharashtra alone has 64 such organisations, the highest in the country. Of them, at least four are banned in other states but not in Maharashtra,” he said, further adding that these frontal organisations have been working under the guise of people’s “social uplift”.Fadnavis, however, didn’t provide the names of these alleged frontal organisations. The term “frontal organisations” is loosely used against organisations that the government considers an affront to their policies.The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, provides for the declaration of an association as unlawful and for the listing of organisations in the first schedule of the Act as “terrorist organisations.”To date, the government has listed 39 organisations in the first schedule of the Act as “terrorist organisations.” Another 10 organisations have been declared as “unlawful associations.” The Union government receives recommendations or information from state or central agencies, on the basis of which it declares associations as unlawful and lists organisations as terrorist outfits from time to time. Action is then to be taken as per the provisions of UAPA.Interestingly, there are no provisions under the UAPA that define what a “frontal organisation” is or what makes an organisation a “front” of a banned unlawful or terrorist group.But the law mandates that the state machinery provide evidence before special tribunals headed by a high court judge to continue with the ban. Most state governments dodge the legal process and merely stop at calling an organisation a front.The new bill, once it receives the assent of the governor, will become law, and the fear is that more and more organisations will come under the loose, unclear category of “frontal organisation.”In 2023, at a police conference attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Gadchiroli deputy inspector general of police (DIGP) Sandip B. Patil had claimed in a paper that 15 cultural and rights organisations are actually “active frontal organisations of Naxals.”Fadnavis now says there are 64 such organisations. The rationale behind terming an organisation as a front was never made public, nor has it ever been open to debates or public scrutiny.Most Opposition MLAs failed to express their dissentAnd to this existing backdrop of the already draconian UAPA law, the Fadnavis government is on its way to add another state law. None of the provisions under the newly introduced bill is not already covered under the existing UAPA or the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Then why was a need for new law felt?Rights activists have expressed apprehensions of overreach and criminalising any act of dissent as Naxalism, more so as this law specifically focusses at on urban Naxalism and not the arms movement that plagues the Vidarbha belt.If there are so many issues with the Bill, how did it get an easy passage? In the 288- member assembly, as many as 235 MLAs are a part of the BJP-led Mahayuti. With an absolute majority in the House, getting a Bill passed is not difficult.However, the remaining 53 MLAs, representing the various parties of the Mahavikas Aghadi failed to express their dissent in the Assembly during the passage of the Bill. The only dissenting note in the Assembly came from the CPI(M)’s lone MLA Vinod Nikole.Later in the Legislative Council, the opposition staged a walk out and a dissenting note was submitted. The opposition leaders who are a part of the joint select committee include Nana Patole, Vijay Wadettiwar, and Satej Patil from the Congress; Jitenda Awhad and Sashikant Shinde from the NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar), and Ambadas Danve and Bhaskar Jadhav from the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray) party.In an interview to the Times of India, Jayant Patil claimed that the key suggestions made by the joint select committee members were orally accepted. But when the Bill was introduced in the Assembly, those suggestions didn’t make it to the Bill. Patil told TOI that the opposition didn’t submit a dissent note in the lower house as they were assured that their suggestions will be a part of the Bill.