Mumbai: The Maharashtra govt on Tuesday dubbed as “fanciful,” “irrelevant and superfluous” the contention by political parties Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (CPI) and social activists of any likely misuse of its new Special Public Security Act and said neither petitioner showed how it has impinged on their rights and hence lack the requisite locus to challenge its constitutionality.“Maharashtra, because of its highest urban population has become centre of Maoist urban network,” said the state, and it lacked a legal framework of public security Act to ban frontal organisations like other affected states, the govt said in its reply to a batch of petitions in the HC.The perceived misuse of the Act is tackled within the Act itself, said the state. The advisory board will be headed by a retired HC judge, and only after confirmation by the advisory board can an organisation be ‘banned’ and in any case it is subject to review before HC as well. The petitioners argue procedures don’t satisfy natural justice needs, nor of an independent judicial body.The reply by the state home department deputy secretary Pritamkumar Jawale also cited the security-related expenditure (SRE) fund entitlement under the home affairs ministry to tackle left-wing extremism-affected areas and said non-enactment of the law would impact such funds “crucial for fighting Maoist battle (sic).”The petitions, one filed by Congress and CPI, claimed the state law would “suppress constitutionally protected peaceful and legitimate dissent”. The definition of ‘unlawful activity’ in the new law is “overbroad and vague” and does not fall within the permissible reasonable restrictions the Constitution provides for under Article 19 (2) and significantly and unwarrantedly “criminalises conduct exhibiting mere tendency.”The singularly problematic aspect of the new law, the petitions argue, is it “confers uncanalised and arbitrary powers to the executive to declare an organization ‘unlawful’,” without following necessary legal steps.Maharashtra advocate general Milind Sathe and govt pleader Anjali Helekar, who tendered the affidavit, viewed the group of petitions as “frivolous, non-maintainable” and sought their dismissal.“A person cannot file a petition challenging constitutional validity for his curiosity or for academic exercise and must have a real grievance and legal injury to maintain a petition,” said the state’s reply. The Chief Justice and Justice Advait Sethna posted the matter to Oct 16, when senior counsel Gayatri Singh for INC and Navroz Seervai for the other petitioners People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Forum Against Oppression of Women would state their submissions. The NGO PUCL contended the state law would muzzle dissent and lacks procedural safeguards that are a pre-requisite under constitutional jurisprudence.The state contended the law provides for “an effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of left-wing extremist organisations or similar organisations.”The state said the background and basis for enacting the MSPSA stems from the Maoist or “Left-Wing Extremist Frontal organisation” functioning in Maharashtra since 1984. In 2004 “Maoist Splinter Groups which were banned in various parts of the country became active by merging into Peoples Work Group (PWG) in Dandakaaranya Region of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, and formed CPI (Maoist) which was banned under UAPA in 2009. Till 2012, Maoists targeted their spread to urban centres like Mumbai, Pune, Nashik and Nagpur,” said the state and added that in 2012, “48 mass frontal organisations” were monitored, which led to arrests of urban naxals. The state cited the 2018 Elgar Parishad case of alleged Maoist links.The state’s reply said the existing anti-terror law (UAPA) has not proved effective to deal with clandestine operations and mass movements who belie their legal façade to preach extremism and recruitment for anti-national activities.The reply backs its law, saying, “States facing similar threats such as Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Odisha have already enacted similar Public Security Acts which have withstood judicial scrutiny.”
