“Naxalism is not restricted to remote rural parts alone, but frontal organisations have come up in urban areas as well which work towards creating distrust about the country and its institutions,” Fadnavis said.
“Even the anti-Naxal squads in Maharashtra wanted such a law to stop the activities of urban Naxals. This proposed law is not aimed at suppressing genuine dissenting voices, but to close down the dens of urban Naxals,” he added.
In response to Congress leader Nana Patole’s question on the need of having a separate Bill when existing laws have provisions to combat Naxalism, Fadnavis said that Maharashtra did not have a law to tackle Naxalism. “We have IPC (Indian Penal Code) and UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act). UAPA is for handling cases related to terror activities,”
Calling it a draconian, anti-constitutional law, activist Teesta Setalvad had said, “ Maharashtra follows Jammu & Kashmir, Chhattisgarh and Odisha to table a third and draconian law avowedly to tackle ‘urban Naxals’ not a legally defined but a politically stigmatising term used by proto-fascist forces to criminalise protest and dissent, jail writers, academics, activists, opposition leaders, etc.”
In July, itself PUCL Maharashtra strongly objects to the repressive and unconstitutional Maharashtra
Special Public Security Bill 2024 ..the Bill, approved few days back by the Cabinet of the Eknath Shinde
Government, was drafted on the lines of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam (2005)
(“Chhatisgarh Act”) and the Andhra Pradesh Special Public Security Act (1992). In the state of
Chhattisgarh, and Jammu and Kashmir - where similar law being the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety
Act, 1978 was first introduced, it has received extensive criticism for being used to target journalists,
lawyers, environmental defenders, citizen activists and adivasi protestors who have dissented against
state action. A constitutional challenge to the Chhattisgarh Act is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.