New Maharashtra Law May Allow State to Declare Any Group ‘Unlawful’

Lets State Ban Groups, Arrest Supporters and Deny Bail Easily

July 17, 2025

Maharashtra has passed a new law that grants sweeping powers to the state to outlaw organisations and criminalise various forms of dissent. While presented as a response to Left-wing extremism, the law signals a deeper shift in how the state defines threat, power, and democratic opposition.

Both the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Council have passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024, which empowers the state government to declare any organisation “unlawful” if it believes it is linked to Left-wing extremism or similar activity, as reported by Deccan Herald. Individuals can face prosecution for being a member of such organisations, raising funds for them, assisting in their operations, or engaging in what the law terms “unlawful activity.”

The Bill’s definitions are vague and open-ended, especially the term “unlawful activity,” which includes any act that “constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity,” or interferes “with the administration of law.”

Punishments range from two to seven years of imprisonment and fines between 200,000 (2 lakh) rupees and 500,000 (5 lakh) rupees. All offences are cognisable and non-bailable, meaning the police can arrest a person without a warrant and the accused must seek bail from a court. The law is therefore not only punitive in nature but also grants pre-trial discretion to the executive branch and police.

A joint select committee received over 12,500 objections and suggestions, but only a handful of amendments were incorporated, according to the Frontline magazine. These included a new title specifying “Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations,” an advisory board with three High Court judges or experts, and a requirement that only officers at the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above may investigate offences under this law. No substantive revisions were made to narrow the definitions or include safeguards against misuse.

Surprisingly, the Bill faced little resistance in the Assembly, with only one legislator from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) voting against it. Some opposition members raised concerns, citing previous misuse of similar laws. Nevertheless, the ruling party passed the Bill swiftly, later defending it as a necessary measure to counter “urban naxal” strategies said to involve infiltration of educational institutions and civil society groups.

The MSPS Bill undermines two basic tenets of “liberal democratic governance,” a system where elected governments are limited by laws, and citizens have protected rights to speak, organise and dissent freely. First, it severely dilutes the principle of “legal certainty,” which demands that laws be clearly defined and predictable in their application. A statute criminalising “danger to public order” or interference with “administration of law” is unacceptably vague. Such elasticity in legal language invites arbitrary enforcement, a core feature of authoritarian systems. Laws must enable citizens to understand what conduct is prohibited and allow courts to assess violations in consistent terms. This Bill fails both.

Second, the law grants the government wide powers to classify any group as “unlawful” without requiring a judicial finding or showing of actual violence or incitement. In doing so, it contravenes the principle of checks and balances, which is essential to democratic functioning.

Political philosophers like Montesquieu and Madison warned that when too much power rests with the government, and there is little oversight, abuse is likely. The law mentions an “advisory board” made up of three High Court judges or qualified persons, meant to review the government’s decision to ban organisations. But this board is not a court, does not have to hold public hearings, and does not guarantee an independent check. It gives the appearance of oversight without real transparency or accountability.

Third, by making all offences arrestable without a warrant and non-bailable, the Bill sidesteps basic legal protections meant to ensure fairness. In systems that appear legal but act like authoritarian regimes, governments often use legal procedures—not just harsh laws themselves—to silence dissent. These procedures let the state punish people before any trial. The case of Father Stan Swamy, who was jailed without trial and died in custody, shows how dangerous such unchecked powers can be when used by a politically driven government.

Fourth, the Bill uses what political scholars call ideological criminalisation—treating certain political beliefs or associations as if they were criminal acts. Though the term “urban naxal” does not appear in the text, the Bill targets what it calls “Left-wing extremist organisations or similar organisations,” language that echoes a political narrative long used to discredit dissenters. By turning this narrative into law, the state gains power to act not on evidence of violence, but on suspicion of beliefs. This shifts the focus from punishing actions to targeting ideas, violating a core principle of liberal democracy—that people must be free to hold and express different views without fear.

Fifth, the claim that the law does not affect the right to protest means little without clear legal safeguards. The Bill defines “unlawful activity” so broadly that it could cover peaceful demonstrations, civil disobedience, or even satyagraha. In the past, similar laws have been misused to detain people for non-violent dissent. Politicians’ verbal assurances offer no protection in a court of law. In political science, it’s called rule “by” law – when legal tools are used to suppress dissent while giving the appearance of legality. The MSPS Bill fits this pattern, granting the state power to criminalise protest while pretending to uphold democratic rights.

Sixth, the law shows clear bias in how it defines and targets threats. It focuses only on Left-wing organisations, while ignoring Right-wing extremism and hate speech, even though data shows that most hate speech cases in Maharashtra involve Right-wing figures. This kind of selective targeting reflects what scholars call partisan legalism – when the law is used not by neutral rules but based on political loyalty. In a democracy with many voices and beliefs, such one-sided enforcement weakens trust in the law itself.

Lastly, the failure of opposition MLAs, especially from the Congress party, to register formal objections despite publicly criticising the Bill points to a serious breakdown of legislative responsibility. In a representative democracy, assemblies are meant not just to pass laws but to question the government and hold it to account. By staying silent during committee meetings and not submitting dissenting notes, these legislators allowed the Bill to pass without challenge.

The MSPS Bill sends a clear message about who is allowed to dissent, who is treated as a threat, and how the state draws the boundaries of democratic activity. It turns political suspicion into legal offence, setting a dangerous example that should concern not just activists, but anyone who cares about the future of constitutional democracy.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.