Maharashtra legislative assembly OKs ‘diluted' bill that targets left-wing extremist organisations
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Speaker Rahul Narwekar initially asked if the bill was being passed unanimously, but the opposition refused. It was passed by a majority.
While introducing the bill, CM
said this law is being brought to control organisations that do not believe in democracy and want to overthrow the state based on the Constitution. He added that 64 left-wing extremist organisations, that have been banned under similar special laws by four neighbouring states, are active in Maharashtra.
"This law is not against left-wing ideas or parties," the CM said. "This law will not be applicable for teachers' and students' protests as it is not against the individual, but the organisation. The law will have to be read in its entirety; if the organisation's aim is to cause harm, then it will be banned." He pointed out that the CPI (Maoist) party was banned in 2009.
Fadnavis clarified that the new law will not be misused against opposition party protesters and activists.
He further said that Naxalism, which was active in five districts of Maharashtra, is now limited to two talukas, and that too will end within a year. "Maoists have now changed their policies. They are trying to brainwash the youth of urban areas and make them stand against the system. This bill will work to control them," he said.
MLAs Rohit Pawar of NCP (SP), Nitin Raut of Congress, and Varun Sardesai of Sena (UBT) raised doubts over the vague definitions of clauses like 'unlawful activities', 'left-wing extremism' and 'organisation'.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Instead of left-wing extremism, the law should specifically mention Naxalism, said Pawar. "The bill was sent to the joint select committee, but very few changes have been made. There is no clear definition of left-wing extremist ideology? There are doubts in the minds of people.
What is the need for a new law when there are existing laws? The definitions are vague and opaque."
Sardesai asked if the law could be used to target protests by 'left-leaning' students, teachers, activists, or organisations. "The Marathi Kruti Samiti opposed the Hindi imposition order in schools and took out a protest. Similarly, bandhs are called by left ideology unions, there are also farmers' protests. Will they be banned under this new law?" Opposing the law, CPI MLA Vinod Nikole said: "I am the only MLA from the Left party.
Violent action should be curbed, but for that there's MCOCA and UAPA. The CM has ended Naxalism in Gadchiroli, but I oppose this bill as it can be misused."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How Maharashtra ‘Urban Naxal' Bill targets Property Rights
Written by Prashant Randive In the name of public order and national security, the line between legitimate state interest and authoritarian overreach is often blurred. The recently enacted Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), 2024, is a troubling example of this phenomenon. While the State justified the bill as a necessary response to threats posed by 'unlawful organisations', several provisions, particularly those that empower police to seal, seize or restrict the use of private property, pose a grave challenge to the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Article 300A of the Constitution stipulates that 'No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.' Though the framers left it to the legislature to define the contours of the lawful deprivation, Indian courts have consistently held that this power must be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily and with due process. Yet, Sections 9 and 10 of the new law allow the police, with prior approval of the commissioner or District Magistrate, to prohibit the use of any premises allegedly linked to unlawful activity. The law authorises eviction, sealing, and restriction of use without prior judicial oversight, without compensation, and crucially, without providing the occupant or owner a chance to be heard beforehand. In the landmark judgement K T Plantation Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka (2011), the Supreme Court laid down the core principles that must guide deprivation of property by the state. Most notably, the Court held that there must be a legitimate public purpose. Secondly, there must be fairness and, in most cases, compensation. Finally, the law must be subject to judicial scrutiny for reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and proportionality. In the case of the MSPS 2024, all three constitutional safeguards appear to be compromised. First, it allows the state to seal or restrict the use of property merely based on the 'belief' of association with an unlawful organisation. This does not meet the constitutionality of the required threshold of a clearly defined public purpose. A blanket seizure of homes, businesses, or rented premises based on such vague suspicion, without establishing direct and deliberate involvement in unlawful activity, cannot be justified as serving a proportionate or legitimate public end. The concept of guilt by association dilutes the principle of individual responsibility and turns property holders into collateral damage in a scrutiny operation. Second, the law failed to provide for any form of compensation to those whose properties are sealed or rendered unusable, often with serious livelihood consequences. While Article 300A does not mandate compensation in every instance, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is often an inherent component of lawful deprivation, especially when action causes material harm. In the absence of compensation and with no clear path to restitution, the law violates both the spirit and substance of the Constitution's property protections. Third, and most dangerously, the law bypasses the prior judicial oversight. The decision to seal, evict or restrict property use is taken by police with approval from the Commissioner or District Magistrate, but not a judicial authority. Review mechanisms are post-facto, limited, and internal to the executive. The Supreme Court in K T Plantation explicitly stated that such statutes must be amenable to judicial review, which implies that they must be designed in a way that embeds procedural fairness and provides a genuine avenue for redress, without preventive remedies or an impartial tribunal, affected citizens are left vulnerable to arbitrary state action. The failure of the Act to meet these constitutional benchmarks of public purpose, just procedure and proportionality renders its property-related provision deeply problematic. Far from being an exception in extraordinary circumstances, the law risks becoming a template for routine and unchecked executive overreach, with ordinary citizens paying the price through the loss of homes, shops and shelters. While countering extremist threats, a democratic state must not wield the weapon of national security in a manner that tramples civil liberties. Laws targeting unlawful associations must not become tools for harassment, chilling dissent, or arbitrary seizure of private spaces. Unfortunately, the MSPS 2024 resurrects colonial impulses of the idea that executive suspicion is sufficient to invade homes, shutter businesses, and override property rights. In doing so, it inverts the constitutional promise from the state that serves its people to one that surveils and punishes without accountability. If left unchecked, such laws may set a dangerous precedent across states, normalising a 'guilt by association' doctrine with wide-ranging implications not just for activists and dissenters but also for ordinary citizens whose homes, hostels, and businesses could fall victim to vague suspicions. The Right to Property may no longer be 'fundamental', but it is still the foundation to liberty, livelihood and dignity. Any law that seeks to erode it must be subjected to the highest standards of constitutional scrutiny. The act, in its current form, fails that test. The writer is an independent researcher and development practitioner working with Savitribai Phule Resource Centre
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
Who Is Maurene Comey, Prosecutor In Jeffery Epstein And Sean 'Diddy' Combs Cases, Fired From Job
The US Justice Department on Wednesday abruptly fired Maurene Comey, a veteran federal prosecutor who has served on high-profile cases involving hip-hop mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's long-time associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms Comey, who was serving as a lawyer in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), was reportedly not given any specific reason for her dismissal from the position. Her removal may be linked to her father, former FBI Director James Comey, who is under investigation, along with former CIA Director John Brennan, for possible false statements to Congress, CNN reported. Ms Comey was handed a memo citing the president's authority to fire employees under Article II of the US Constitution, but was not given a reason for her dismissal, according to the BBC. Who is Maurene Comey? Maurene Comey was born as a Roman Catholic to James Comey, the former US attorney in the SDNY from January 2002 until December 2003, and FBI Director from 2013 to 2017. She completed her undergraduate studies at the College of William and Mary and earned her law degree from Harvard Law School. Ms Comey was one of the lead prosecutors in Jeffrey Epstein's associate and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell's case. In 2022, Maxwell was given a 20-year prison term for assisting Epstein in the sexual abuse of minor girls. She has also led the prosecution of Sean Diddy Combs, who is scheduled to be sentenced on October 3. He was found guilty on charges related to transporting women for drug-fueled sexual performances. Despite a track record of major contributions to the nation's most sensitive cases, she was fired by the Justice Department without prior notice. Her dismissal comes at a time when Trump is facing major pressure to release information about Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison while serving his sentence.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Congress urges PM Modi to restore Jammu and Kashmir statehood
The Congress on Wednesday urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, adding that the demand being made by the residents of the Union Territory was legitimate and 'firmly grounded in their constitutional and democratic rights'. In a joint letter to the prime minister, Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge urged the Union government to introduce a legislation in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to grant statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. The Monsoon Session will begin on July 21 and end on August 12. The residents of Jammu and Kashmir have consistently called for the restoration of statehood for the past five years, the Congress leaders said in their letter. 'It is important to recognise that while there have been instances of Union Territories being granted statehood in the past, the case of Jammu and Kashmir is without precedent in independent India,' they said. 'This is the first time a full-fledged state has been downgraded to a Union Territory following its bifurcation.' In August 2019, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government had abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution, which gave special status to the erstwhile state. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Union government to restore Jammu and Kashmir's statehood. In their letter, Gandhi and Kharge referred to statements made by the prime minister on May 19, 2024, and September 19, 2024, reiterating the Union government's commitment to restoring statehood. The letter noted that the Union government had made similar assurances to the Supreme Court in the matter. "We urge upon the Government to bring forward a legislation in the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament to grant full statehood to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Additionally, we request that the Government bring forward legislation to include the Union Territory of… — Congress (@INCIndia) July 16, 2025 The Congress leaders also requested the Union government to bring a legislation to implement provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution in Ladakh. The Sixth Schedule under Article 244 (Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas) of the Constitution guarantees protections for land and a nominal autonomy for citizens in designated tribal areas. In Ladakh, more than 97% of the population belong to Scheduled Tribes while Kargil is a Muslim-majority region in the Union Territory. The inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule would allow for the creation of autonomous development councils to govern land, public health and agriculture. Ten such councils exist in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, the only states where the Sixth Schedule has been implemented. Civil society groups have been demanding the inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule. The Congress leaders said in their letter that the inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule would be a 'significant step towards addressing the cultural, developmental and political aspirations' of the people while 'safeguarding their rights, land and identity'. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said that the Congress' letter was a 'good move'. The Congress and Abdullah's National Conference are allies. 'We have been waiting for the Opposition to raise our voice in Parliament', The Hindu quoted him as saying. 'I am thankful to Rahul ji and Kharge ji for raising the issue with the Centre,' he was quoted as saying. 'We are not demanding something that was not promised to us. Inside Parliament and outside it, we were promised statehood. The SC also suggested 'at the earliest'.' In November, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed a resolution calling for the restoration of the special status that the erstwhile state had under Article 370. Through the resolution, the Assembly had sought to reaffirm the importance of the special status and constitutional guarantees that 'safeguarded the identity, culture and rights of the people' of Jammu and Kashmir and 'expresses concern over their unilateral removal'. In January, Abdullah said that he wanted to give the Centre the 'first opportunity' to restore the Union Territory's statehood before seeking legal recourse.
