Bill to curb urban naxalism to be tabled in Maharashtra, Opposition raises concerns
advertisementIN THIS STORY#Maharashtra
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC junks contempt plea by Sameer Wankhede's father against Nawab Malik
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Dnyandev Wankhede, father of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede, seeking action against Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Nawab Malik for contempt of court. The petitioner had alleged that although the former minister had given an assurance to the court on December 9, 2021 about not making any objectionable statements against the Wankhede family, he had made several adverse and defamatory statements subsequently, violating the undertaking given to the court. Nawab Malik 'Ever since the high-profile arrest of Bollywood celebrity Aryan Khan by Sameer Wankhede, Nawab Malik – as part of a concerted sustained campaign actuated by personal animosity, malice and vendetta – published various defamatory material against the Wankhedes through his social media accounts and press interviews,' the petition said. On October 3, 2021, when Sameer Wankhede was zonal director with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), the agency seized drugs on board the Cordelia cruise ship off Mumbai coast and arrested Shah Rukh's son Aryan Khan and several others who were present on the ship. Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing Dyandev Wankhede, highlighted Malik's X post dated December 28, 2021, where he referred to Sameer Wankhede as 'Sameer Dawood Wankhede'. Again on January 2 and 3, 2022, Malik allegedly spoke about the family in a derogatory manner during an interview. Subsequently, on February 8, 2022, the high court issued a show cause notice to Malik over the alleged violations of court orders. Advocate Khan urged the court to punish the NCP leader for contempt of court. However, Malik's counsel argued that the statements were harmless and made without any malafide intentions to violate the court's order. The division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor then dismissed the petition, saying Malik's tweets and statements did not amount to breach of the court's order. Since the statements were made during the pendency of another suit against him, it would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its contempt jurisdiction, the judges observed. 'We are not satisfied that such statements amount to any breach. Considering the above situation, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our contempt jurisdiction', the bench said.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
What Maharashtra's ‘urban Maoism' Bill says
The stringent Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, which seeks 'to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of left wing extremist organisations or similar organisations', was passed by the state Assembly by a voice vote on Thursday. The MSPS Bill has been debated widely ever since it was first introduced in the monsoon session of the state legislature last year by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who was Deputy Chief Minister at the time. The Opposition has raised concerns over the definition and interpretation of some of the terms and clauses in the Bill. The Bill will now be introduced in the Legislative Council where it is expected to pass as well. It will then be sent to the Governor for his assent, following which it will become law. The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill says the 'menace of Naxalism is not only limited to remote areas of the Naxal affected states, but its presence is increasing in the urban areas also through the Naxal front organisations'. According to the government, these 'frontal organisations' provide logistics and safe refuge to armed Naxal cadres, and 'existing laws are ineffective and inadequate to tackle this menace of Naxalism'. To address this situation, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts and banned 48 Naxal frontal organisations, the Bill says. The Bill gives the government the power to declare any suspect 'organisation' as an 'unlawful organisation'. It prescribes four offences for which an individual can be punished: (i) for being a member of an unlawful organisation, (ii) when not a member, for raising funds for an unlawful organisation, (iii) for managing or assisting in managing an unlawful organisation and, (iv) for committing an 'unlawful activity'. These offences carry jail terms of two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The offence relating to committing an unlawful activity carries the toughest punishment: imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh. Offences under the proposed law are cognizable, which means arrests can be made without a warrant, and are non-bailable. The Bill defines 'unlawful activity' as any action taken by an individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation or otherwise, which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility; or interferes with the maintenance of public order; or interferes with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force to any public servant, etc. Indulging in or propagating, acts of violence, vandalism or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public; encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or collecting money or goods to carry out any of these unlawful activities are also included. The Bill was first brought at the fag end of the 2024 Monsoon Session of the Assembly. The day after the Bill was tabled, the Assembly was prorogued and the Bill was not passed. After the Assembly elections, following which Fadnavis became Chief Minister, the Bill was introduced in December last year. Fadnavis said that since many organisations had expressed apprehensions, the Bill would be sent to the joint select committee, and taken up again after all views and opinions had been considered. The Joint Select Committee, comprising 25 members from both houses of the legislature, was headed by BJP leader and state Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule. The Committee held five meetings between March 4 and June 26 this year. The Committee received more than 1,200 suggestions and objections from various stakeholders including opposition parties, NGOs, and citizens until the April 15 deadline. Some objections were raised about open-ended definitions of terms like 'unlawful activity'; some like the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) asked for the Bill be withdrawn in its entirety. Eventually, the Committee made a total of three amendments to the original Bill. 🔴 The first amendment was regarding the 'long title and preamble'. Initially the long title and preamble read: 'A Bill to provide far more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organisations and for matters connected….,'. 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', and changed unlawful activities of individuals and organisations to 'unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar organisations…'. 🔴 The second amendment was to clause 5(2) of the Bill, which says 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.' The Committee suggested that the Board shall consist of a chairperson who is or has been a judge of the High Court, and 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. 🔴 The third amendment was made to clause 15(2). Instead of the acts defined under the Bill being investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector, it was suggested that it should be entrusted to officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
ED names Rohit Pawar in MSCB scam chargesheet
Rohit Pawar (File photo) MUMBAI: ED recently filed a chargesheet against NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar in a money laundering case connected to the Rs 25,000-crore Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank (MSCB) scam. This despite the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police filing a second closure report in the case, which ED has challenged in court through an intervention application. EOW had previously given a clean chit to all involved parties, including NCP neta Ajit Pawar and his nephew Rohit. Deputy CM Ajit Pawar serves as the governing alliance partner, while Rohit remains in opposition. In 2023, ED had filed a chargesheet against Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills, which is linked to Ajit Pawar in the MSCB scam for the similar offence. Although the chargesheet mentioned Ajit Pawar's connection to the company, he was not named as an accused. Rohit said: "EOW itself for the second time had filed a closure report. I'm not even named as an accused there, yet ED misuses it to selectively target me while absolving those who joined BJP. This is a legal anomaly apart from being politically motivated, and we will fight it. The ED officers are not at fault as they have to report to someone and need to obey orders given by someone at top." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 코인 투자금 300만원 있다면 '이렇게'해라 나스닥터 더 알아보기 Undo ED had submitted the intervention application in court last year, challenging the closure report on the grounds that it would adversely affect their case as it was based on the EOW's FIR. Meanwhile, ED has proceeded to file a chargesheet against Rohit concerning the purchase of Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd through an auction by his company, Baramati Agro Ltd. Last year, ED had recorded Rohit's statement in the case and later attached the assets of Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd valued at Rs 50 crore.
