'Active naxalism' vs. 'passive naxalism': what is the Fadnavis government really afraid of?

Violent Naxalite activities are now confined to only two tehsils in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra and that too is going to end soon, declared chief minister Devendra Fadnavis in the state assembly. Gadchiroli, endowed with minerals and forests, is being prepared for an onslaught by miners and tribal inhabitants are fighting a losing battle against the state over their rights over the land and forests.

Yet, chief minister Devendra Fadnavis is worried about naxalite activities spilling into the urban areas of the state. That at least is the justification for ushering in a new law, Maharashtra Special Security Act (once it is signed by the Governor), to deal with left-leaning extremism in urban areas.

The state, it is true, has witnessed bomb blasts in the 1990s and the 26/11 attack on Mumbai by terrorists. They were dealt with under the existing laws and the introduction of the Unlawful Activities prevention Act (UAPA).

In addition, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) also helped deal with terrorism and organised violence. Why then does Fadnavis feel the need for a special legislation to deal with ‘urban naxals’?

The draconian UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) can be invoked to deal with ‘active naxalism’ but not ‘passive naxalism’, explains Fadnavis to justify the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, which was passed by the legislative assembly on 11 July, 2025 and subsequently by the legislative council.

The new Bill in its new avatar aims at curbing ‘left-leaning extremism’ (replacing the term ‘urban naxals’ used in the earlier draft) in the state.

Passive militancy, Fadnavis claimed, is increasing rapidly in urban areas of the state and hence the urgency for a new law. Intelligence agencies are said to have warned of an alarming rise in militant ideas infiltrating educational institutions, among students and the NGO sector besides cultural groups and collectives, according to the preamble and objectives laid down in the bill.

Fadnavis, a lawyer himself, laboured the point that the new legislation is ‘more progressive’ than the legislations passed by the four other Naxalite affected states, namely Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Telangana.

No individual can be arrested under the new law, he points out, unless the individual happens to be a member of a banned organisation. But then the law empowers the state to declare organisations unlawful and overnight arrest the members. Worse, the state can book and arrest those, who may not be members but who offer logistical support, shelter and finance to the organisations and members.

“Those who "give, receive or solicit any contribution or assistance" or those who "harbour" its members” are also liable to be punished and imprisoned under the law.

What is it that the government is really afraid of? Former Bombay High Court judge justice Gautam Patel presciently suggested that the government is probably afraid of being called to account for its acts of omission and commission. Alarmed at the rising tide of disaffection among various groups, namely students, teachers, farmers, workers, commuters and civil society groups, the legal ground is being prepared for a crackdown, believe several activists.

Increasingly, uncomfortable questions are being raised about the misuse of public money, crumbling urban infrastructure and blatant corruption, the government is, therefore, trying to ensure that citizens stop asking questions.

CPI (M) MLA Vinod Nikolay pointed out that several leftist organisations hold protests routinely to uphold rights of employees, workers and the oppressed, the Anganwadi workers or organises the long march of farmers, and asks, ‘will this law lead to restrictions on them in the near or distant future?’ 

***

The Bill last year had come up against vehement opposition and was referred to a legislative committee, which invited public response. As many as 12,400 responses were received and the government admits that 7,500 of them advocated that the Bill be scrapped. Despite such overwhelming thumbs down to the Bill, the government refused to abandon the Bill. While nothing is known about the remaining objections and suggestions given, just three changes were made to the new draft Bill. It is not known if any one of them was suggested by members of the public.

The first change shortened and revised the name of the Bill. The second change incorporated was regarding the constitution of the advisory board which would vet the state government’s proposal to ban an organisation. Earlier the committee was to comprise three members qualified to become high court judges. The revised draft states that one member will be a retired high court judge, another a retired district judge and the third a government pleader. The final change provided that the investigating officer would be a DSP and not a SI.

Not only does the new law authorise more sweeping powers to the state government to conduct surveillance but also confiscate property, freeze bank accounts and attach other moveable or immoveable property ‘without notice’. Offences under the law are non-bailable, which means police can arrest people without warrants from courts, 2-7 years of imprisonment and Rs 2-5 lakhs as fine. The arrested people can also be summarily evicted from their rented accommodation.

The failure of the Maharashtra Police to produce convincing evidence to prosecute the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case even seven years after the accused were arrested, may have provoked the state government into introducing the law, say some observers. The Bhima-Koregaon accused included lawyers, professors, priests, activists and singers from across the country—many of whom had neither visited Bhima Koregaon near Pune nor knew about the place like late Fr Stan Swami. They were nevertheless accused of having links with banned outfits and instigating violence at Bhima Koregaon on 1 January, 2018.

Since the state government already has a number of statutes to deal with violence and extremism, shouldn’t the government first clarify how many cases have been filed under these statutes till now and how many have resulted in conviction? Fadnavis hinted in the assembly that his immediate target is to tame six outfits active in the state. His refusal to name them inside or outside the assembly has triggered outrage.

The names of the following organisations, however, are doing the rounds in the political circles of the state: Dandakaranya Adivasi Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan, Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangathan, Revolutionary Democratic Front, Virodhi Sanskritik Sangathan, Indian Association of People's Lawyers, Committee Against Violence Against Women and Kabir Kala Manch.

Former editor of Mahanagar Nikhil Wagle, veteran journalist Raju Parulekar, Bombay High Court lawyer Lara Jesani, Marathi journalist Vivek Bhavsar, and senior journalist Geeta Sheshu too have opposed the new legislation. Doubting the real intent of the government, they believe the law will be used to stifle dissent. There is no need to have a new law, feels Jesani.

If naxalism is dead or dying in the state, wondered Wagle, what prompted another legislation? They all believe that since the chief minister specifically mentioned six ‘left leaning’ organisations in the state seeking to undermine the state and subvert the Constitution, he should have named them in the House.  

Parulekar points out that the union home minister Amit Shah is on record as saying that almost three-fourth of naxal activities in the country have come to a stop. If the result has been achieved without another special law, he argues, where is the need for one? Those who raise their voice in Dharavi against Adani Group taking over the prime land can now be hounded with the help of the new law, he apprehends.

Fadnavis pleaded that the Bill was introduced on the directives of the central government. He told the House, “Let me assure the state that fundamental right of the people to speak up against the system will not be impacted by the law. Neither is it against left parties nor meant to act against opposition parties.” Asked why existing laws are not enough, he said, “UAPA can be invoked only if there is the use of weapons and ‘active violence’ to book a person or organisation under it”.  In the process, he merely succeeded in confirming the worst suspicion of the people about the law.

Former Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel has been quoted in the media as saying that according to him, the Bill cannot pass a constitutional test. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who announced this week that he would no longer practice in court, has also been quoted as saying that if the Bill is challenged ‘before a fiercely independent court’, it would fall foul of the Constitution. Time will tell if they are proven right and how the state uses or abuses the law.