Maharashtra Has Become 'Centre' Of Maoist Urban Network: State Defence Special Public Security Act Before Bombay High Court

The Maharashtra Government while defending its decision to enact the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA), on Tuesday (October 6) told the Bombay High Court that because of its highest urban population, the State has become a 'centre' for Maoist urban network and thus in absence of legal framework to ban such 'left wing extremist' organisations, it has come up with this law as done by States like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

The State filed its affidavit through Pritamkumar Jawale, the Deputy Secretary, Home Department before a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, in a petition filed by the Indian National Congress (INC) and also the Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), both challenging the constitutional validity of the MSPSA.

The affidavit cited various instances particularly, the caste-based riots infamously known as the Bhima-Koregaon Violence which broke out across Maharashtra on January 1, 2018. It stated that the arrest of the 'central committee' members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI-M) in Elgar Parishad, brought national focus on 'Urban Activities' of 'Urban Maoists.' The documents seized in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, exposed depth of their network, men and material resources and frontal organisations working for Maoist strategy, the State pointed out. 

The State further pointed out that the Ministry of Home Affairs gave directions to all the States regarding implementation mechanism for countering activities of CPI (Maoist) in urban areas, which included a 4-point approach: Banning of the front organisations of CPI (Maoist), Financial choking of CPI (Maoist) and its front organisation, Perception management to counter Maoist propaganda, Co-ordination between Central & State Agencies etc.

"Maharashtra has highest number of frontal organisation (64) in country, whereas other States like Andhra Pradesh (19 in total and banned 7), Telangana (out of 29 banned 7), Chhattisgarh (banned all 11), Odisha (banned all 7) and Jharkhand (banned all 14). The State of Maharashtra, because of its highest urban population has become centre of Maoist urban network. It did not have legal framework of public security act to ban frontal organisation like other left wing extremist affected States," the affidavit reads. 

The MSPSA, the State justified, has been enacted by the government with the stated objective of establishing a robust legal framework to prevent and tackle unlawful, subversive, and extremist and that it balances the fundamental liberties of citizens with the paramount duty of preserving public order and national integrity.

"It is submitted that consideration of all the provisions of the Act clearly indicates that this Act is not only a constitutional necessity but a well-structured mechanism designed to protect the democratic fabric from extremist organisations, hidden groups or people who try to secretly destroy or weaken the nation while pretending to foilow rules. It is therefore submitted that the citizens or organisations who do not act under any design of threatening or weakening the nation need not have any cause of action to file the present petition. The allegation about violation of rights under Article 19 (1)(a) are concerned, it is evident that such rights are subject to restrictions that may be imposed by law under sub article 2 of Article 19 and one of the grounds of imposing such restriction is public order," the affidavit states. 

The State clarified that before clearing the MSPSA, the Joint Committee considered a substantial number of written objections, exceeding 15,000 in number. It is because of meaningful public consultation, some provisions of Bill were changed or amended.

"It is submitted that as a result of public consultation, some of the changes made are - the Title and Preamble was revised removing references to 'individuals and Organisation' and replacing it with 'left wing extremist organisation or similar organisations.' Similarly, the composition of the Advisory Board was altered as per suggestions received, by providing for the inclusion of a Retired High Court Judge, a serving or former District Judge, and the Public Prosecutor or Government Pleader of High Court. Considering suggestions that high rank officer need to undertake investigation, it has provided that the investigation is to be carried out by officer not below the Rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or Dy Superintendent of Police. It is therefore submitted that the allegations made by the Petitioner that no public consultation is made for enacting the impugned Act, is without any legal justification denied in toto," the State claimed.

Citing several cases like the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, Prof Saibaba's case etc the State has claimed that on the basis of past experience, it was realised that the menace of naxalism is not only limited to remote areas of the naxal affected area, but its presence is increasing in the Urban areas also, and they conduct their "Unlawful Activities" under different covers, using different heads, by changing different names of their organisations, in clandestine manner and therefore the MSPS Act, in its final form, uses expression "left wing extremist organisation", in which word "extremist" is very important, the State said.

"It is experienced that some Organisations working for and under influence of Maoist impact appear and act in any form, even by mis-using the name and titles of social Organisations having social object. Therefore, such organisations having link or nexus with Unlawful Activities, will have reference to left wing extremist organisation, and will not have reference to other organisation, carrying their social objects. Taking into consideration the nature and modus operandi of such extremist organisations, expression Left Wing Extremist Organisations is perfectly inserted in the Act," the State justified. 

The State further submitted that Act under challenge is enacted to curb insurgencies and violent anti-State movements, which survive not only on ideology; but they require robust logistical supply chains, safe houses, covert financial pipelines, and institutional fronts and thus the MSPS Act in question bridges a critical legislative gap by empowering authorities to take action against the support structures before they translate into physical violence or loss of life the object of the Act is to provide effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of left-wing extremist organisations or similar organisations and since public order is being jeopardised, by the unlawful activities of the Left Wing Extremist Organisations, which interfere with the administration of law and justice, provide remedy for curbing the same, the State justified. 

This is particularly in reference to the challenge of the petitioners against the provisions of the MSPSA which empowers local authorities to demolish houses and properties of people booked under the said law. 

The bench is likely to hear the case on Tuesday (October 13).