'The strategy of frontal organisations of the Maoists is to create unrest and ensure that such unrest leads to a law and order problem.'
'To cover such acts it was necessary to bring in a different definition of unlawful activities which is different from the definition of unlawful activities in the UAPA.'
Sandip Patil, Inspector General, Anti-Naxal Operations, Maharashtra, explains at length about the legal provisions incorporated in the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, that has come under fire from human rights activists and politicians.
While the activists fear that the state government will misuse the provisions of this bill to prosecute anyone and everyone as an 'urban Naxal', the Opposition believes that the state government will misuse it to arrest political opponents leading mass agitations.
The Opposition's fears stems from the fact that the state government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party has made its intention clear to promulgate an ordinance as the Maharashtra assembly was prorogued a day after the bill was tabled in the House.
The first of a two-part interview with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff.com.
What is the main purpose of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024? What loopholes in the existing anti-Naxal laws does this bill want to plug?
First you should understand how the Maoists work.
The Communist Party of India (Maoist) is headed by a central committee or politburo. It has two wings under them: The People's Liberation Guerrilla Army, which is fighting in the jungles of central India.
Then there's other wing called the United Front.
United Front is an umbrella organisation of different mass organisations working among various targeted revolutionary groups like say the students, farmers, Adivasis or different classes.
There are different sections which are considered as the revolutionary class by the Maoists.
The United Front has two tasks: Mobilisation and military task.
The CPI (Maoist) wants to mobilise masses to indoctrinate them with Maoist ideology with the purpose of (staging an) armed rebellion (against the elected government in India and establish a Maoist government).
Secondly, the United Front's military tasks also involves providing all logistical support -- arms, ammunition, electronic items, shelter in the cities when armed Maoist cadres come out of the jungles for treatment or in search of safe hideouts -- to their cadre and leaders who fight in the jungles of central India.
So far as the Maoist army which is fighting in jungles is concerned, we have contained it to a large extent in Maharashtra (Since 2021, 80 hardcore Maoists have been neutralised in Gadchiroli, 102 Maoists have been arrested and 29 others have surrendered before the Gadchiroli police, Gadchiroli SP Neelotpal informed the media on July 17, 2024, after 12 Maoists were gunned down by the district police and C-60 Commandos in the jungles bordering Gadchiroli and Chhattisgarh).
But we have not taken (been able to take) any action against the United Front, whose members are called urban Maoists.
States like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh (enacted in 1992; The Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992; [external link]), and Chhattisgarh (enacted in 2005; The Chhattisgarh Vishesh jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005; [external link]) already have a state security act since the last 20-30 years to deal with urban Maoists. They use that legal framework to ban organisations which are frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist).
We also have a number of frontal organisations (that support the Maoists) in Maharashtra. But we do not have any legal framework to take action against these elements.
Coming to the second part of your question about loopholes that this law will plug: Acts like the UAPA (Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act) deal with offences related to acts that are detrimental to the unity and integrity of India and terrorist acts.
The modus operandi of urban frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist) is such that they may not do anything which is directly related to harming the unity and integrity of India.
If you have read the judgment (related to bail; [external link; pdf file]) of Professor G N Saibaba -- and there are a number of such judgments -- the (Bombay high) court said (making the case for bail to be given to Professor Sai Baba) while one can say that literature related to Maoist ideology was found in the possession of Professor Saibaba, that he was propagating Maoist ideology but was there any evidence that proved his involvement in acts of violence or terrorism.
Now, Saibaba being a teacher will not go and fight in jungles, although he was propagating the ideology of Maoists and recruiting for them.
If you look at UAPA's broader definition (and UAPA's) limited reach it is becoming almost impossible to convict people who fit the urban Maoist bill because (the provisions of the UAPA require) their (of urban Maoists) direct involvement in terrorist acts.
Then there were a number of procedural issues about delaying the sanction, the stricter guidelines for the arrest (under the UAPA). The Centre has already directed that states should enact their own state security acts in order to contain the spread of Maoist frontal organisations in state's urban areas.
The modus operandi of these frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist) don't come under the purview of the UAPA and hence we are unable to deal with such acts within a legal framework.
We can file cases under the UAPA against those who we arrest during encounters in the jungles where these Maoists are involved in actual acts of violence but if actions of some people lead to a law and order problem, like for example, what happened in the Bhima Koregaon case, which led to law and order issues.
The strategy of frontal organisations of the Maoists is to create unrest and ensure that such unrest leads to a law and order problem.
To cover such acts it was necessary to bring in a different definition of unlawful activities which is different from the definition of unlawful activities in the UAPA.
What legal framework does the Maharashtra Special Public Security bill provide as far as dealing with the people who you call urban Maoists is concerned?
As per the provisions (of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024), a state government will declare an organisation as unlawful organisation by studying their modus operandi, by studying their dossiers that the state police have made, and by looking at their past history we can prove (using the legal framework outlined in the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024) that a particular organisation is a frontal organisation of the Maoists, and make a case to the government to ban such organisations.
Once it is declared as an unlawful organisation, then the Act will come into the picture and then the offensive or penal sections will be imposed on members of such organisations.
The Act is very clear that there will be (about what constitutes) unlawful organisations -- there will not be any unlawful individuals -- but individuals associated with such unlawful organisations will be prosecuted.
Our act is a step ahead of other states' acts in terms of safeguards that we (the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024) have, which requires the state government's decision to ban an organisaton as an unlawful organisation to have the approval of a mandatory advisory board; only then the ban will come into effect.
I will emphasise that it is not only sufficient for the state government to declare an organisation as unlawful but it has to be approved by the advisory board. Then only that ban will come into effect.
- Part 2 of the Interview: 'Only Then Can We Call Them Urban Naxals'
