Summary – Aakar Patel, Chair of the Board at Amnesty International India, urgently appeals to the Governor of Maharashtra to deny assent to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill. Framed as a countermeasure to so-called “urban naxalism,” the Bill threatens constitutionally and internationally protected human rights. Naxalism is seen as a decades-old rural and communist-inspired movement to overthrow the Indian government through armed force. “Urban naxalism” in the present discussion refers to alleged support for this movement by intellectuals, academics and others. The term “urban naxalism” has no legal definition in Indian law. With its vague language, discriminatory focus, absence of judicial oversight, and high potential for misuse, the Bill risks criminalizing legitimate dissent. The Governor must reject this deeply flawed and dangerous legislation.
Your Excellency Shri. Chandrapuram Ponnusamy Radhakrishnan, Governor of Maharashtra.
I write to you with grave concern regarding the recently passed Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, which now awaits your assent. Though presented as a tool to combat “urban naxalism,” The Bill introduces vague, overboard, and ideologically biased provisions that pose an immediate threat to international and constitutionally protected rights and will criminalize dissent in the state.
The Honorable Chief Minister, Devendra Fadnavis, has asserted that the law will not be used to suppress government critics. However, the term “urban naxalism” has no legal definition in Indian law. It is a rhetorical and politically charged phrase – popularized in media and political discourse, not jurisprudence. Its vagueness allows it to be weaponized against civil society, often conflating peaceful dissent with sedition or terrorism. There is a troubling precedent. The Bhima Koregaon case, in which 16 activists were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act UAPA, demonstrates how this label has been used to detain individuals for years without trial. Many of those accused were not linked to any act of violence, but to the expression of critical views, advocacy for marginalized communities, or the defense of civil liberties. Notably, the arrests began in 2018 during Fadnavis’ earlier tenure as Chief Minister. Seven years later, trials have yet to commence, bail remains denied to six of the activists, and one of the accused, Father Stan Swamy, died in custody.
The urban naxal narrative has dangerously blurred the line between non-violent political opposition and violent extremism. Such conflation is not only incompatible with India’s constitutional values but also violates its international legal obligations.
The following reasons underscore why the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill must not be implemented:
1. Discriminatory targeting based on political beliefs
The Bill’s Preamble identifies “Left Wing Extremist organizations or similar organizations” as its focus. This singles out ideologies for criminalization and violates Article 26 of the ICCPR, which guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of political opinion. Moreover, punishing membership to an organization solely based on ideas without proof of incitement of or participation in violence further undermines the right to freedom of association guaranteed under Article 22 of ICCPR.
2. Vague and overbroad definitions
Section 2(f) defines “unlawful activity” using imprecise and subjective terms such as “menace to public order” or “tendency to interfere with the administration of law.” These definitions could encompass peaceful protest or civil disobedience, violating the principle of legality under Article 15 of the ICCPR.
3. Lack of independent judicial oversight
Section 3 empowers the executive to declare organizations “unlawful,” with no provision for prompt and impartial judicial review. The Advisory Board tasked with reviewing such declarations comprises only government appointees, violating Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, which guarantees equality before impartial courts.
4. Sweeping powers of search, seizure, and forfeiture
Sections permitting searches and seizures based on an officer’s “opinion” or “personal knowledge” strip away judicial safeguards and open the door to arbitrary action. This violates Article 17 of the ICCPR, which guarantee fair trial and due process in searches and protects against unlawful interference with one’s home, property, and privacy.
5. Denial of access to remedies and legal recourse
Section 14 prohibits appeals, while Section 17 provides blanket immunity to government officials, even in cases of abuse. Such clauses eliminate accountability and breach Article 2(3) of the ICCPR, which mandates effective legal remedies for rights violations.
6. Presumption against bail
Section 15 renders all offences under the Bill non-bailable and cognizable, despite the vagueness of their definitions. This facilitates prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial scrutiny, violating Article 9 of the ICCPR, which guarantees fair trial, in particular the presumption of innocence and protects against arbitrary arrest and detention.
7. Duplication of existing legal frameworks
India already possess very restrictive counterterrorism and criminal laws, including the UAPA, MCOCA, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which criminalize the same or similar alleged conduct. The new Bill adds another weapon to suppress dissent, turning the legal process itself into punishment and further eroding civil liberties.
Your Excellency, this Bill under the guise of security represents a grave and unnecessary expansion of state power at the cost of fundamental rights. Far from safeguarding Maharashtra, it criminalizes dissent, debate, and accountability. The misuse of vague terms like “urban naxal” has already caused immense harm. Assenting to this Bill would legitimize a framework that enables abuse and impunity over justice.
We urge you, with the utmost respect, to withhold assent to this Bill. Instead, we call upon your office to uphold the constitutional duty to protect civil liberties, ensure access to justice, and preserve the human rights values enshrined in both Indian and international law.
Yours Faithfully,
Aakar Patel,
Chair of Board, Amnesty International India.
