Maharashtra Public Security Bill: Vague and dangerous for civil liberties

Indian Express

11-07-2025

'When I use a word,' says Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carol's Through the Looking Glass, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' However, when words are used in a piece of legislation, they cannot mean what the party in power wants them to. After all, vagueness is a legitimate ground for striking down a piece of legislation if it violates equality before the law and equal protection.
Consider this: In the new Maharashtra Public Security Bill, an unlawful activity, defined under Section 2(f), targets a wide range of activities. They include, 'acts which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility; or (an act) which interferes or tends to interfere with maintenance of public order; or interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel, which is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force or otherwise to any public servant including the Forces of the State Government or the Central Government in exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant and Forces; or of indulging in or propagating, acts of violence, vandalism or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public, or indulging in or encouraging, the use of firearms, explosives or other devices or disrupting communications by rail, road, air or water; or of encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; of collecting money or goods to carry out any one or more of the unlawful activities mentioned above'.
In another piece of criminal legislation, the same term is defined 'as an act (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India'. We now have an interesting conundrum. The term, 'unlawful activity', for the purposes of criminal law, therefore, has two different meanings under two different statutes.
But the definition of an unlawful activity is so vague and broad that any person who chooses to oppose, for whatsoever reason or motivation, any act of the government can be jailed. Under the law, for example, Mahatma Gandhi could be jailed for carrying out the Salt Satyagraha. So can the participants of the Swadeshi Movement. B R Ambedkar could be jailed for burning the Manusmriti. Under the same law, peaceful protests could be criminalised, and protestors jailed for years without trial.
The definition of an unlawful act has several vague terms designed for misuse and to strike at the core of liberty of the citizen to oppose and protest state action. For example, instead of the word 'abetting', which is commonly used in criminal law, the new law uses the word encouraging. What amounts to abetting a crime is well-known and settled jurisprudence. However, the word 'encouraging' is alien to criminal law and thus susceptible to widespread misuse.
In the Assembly, the Chief Minister assured the state that he will not allow for misuse of the law while he himself has, in the past, claimed that Urban Naxals joined the Bharat Jodo Yatra. In the Chief Minister's view, therefore, jailing the members of the Bharat Jodo Yatra would not amount to a misuse of the law, and thus, make all of them liable criminally under this new law. For far too long, the ghost of another term, 'Urban Naxal' has continued to haunt activists like Stan Swamy and Rona Wilson, academics like Shoma Sen, lawyers like Surendra Gadling. Indeed, the blatant misuse of the UAPA against civilians began in Maharashtra in 2018 by imprisoning 16 academics, out of whom eight are out on bail, and Stan Swamy in jail. Some like Mahesh Raut continue to languish in jail.
What this Bill provides us with is a Faustian bargain of security at the cost of liberty. Ultimately, as we well know with UAPA, we will be left with neither. As citizens, we must be resolute that a free people can never be truly secure without the unwavering protection of their fundamental rights.
The writer is a lawyer practicing in Delhi who has appeared for some of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case