Explained: What Maharashtra's 'Urban Maoism' Bill says and why it matters

On July 10, 2025, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2025, a polarizing piece of legislation aimed at countering what the state government terms “urban Maoism” or “urban Naxalism.”

The bill, which sailed through the Legislative Council the following day, awaits the Governor’s assent to become law.

Championed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also oversees the Home portfolio, the bill is presented as a critical tool to address the spread of Left-wing extremist ideologies in urban areas.

However, critics warn it could be weaponized to silence dissent and curb civil liberties. Below is a detailed, original explainer on the bill’s provisions, its stated purpose, and why it has sparked intense debate.

What Does the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill Say?

The MSPS Bill, 2025, is designed to combat “unlawful activities” linked to Left-wing extremist organizations, particularly those operating in urban settings. The bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons explicitly states its intent to tackle “the increasing activities of front organizations of banned Naxal organizations in urban areas, which are involved in activities that are detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of the country.”

Key provisions include:

Definition of Unlawful Activity: The bill defines an “unlawful activity” as “any action taken by an individual or organization, whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation, which is intended to or likely to cause danger to public order, peace, or tranquility; or interferes or tends to interfere with the maintenance of law and order; or interferes with or undermines the authority of the institutions established by the Constitution.”

Penalties and Powers: Offences under the bill are cognizable and non-bailable, with punishments ranging from two to seven years of imprisonment and fines up to ₹5 lakh. The state is empowered to declare organizations unlawful, seize their funds, and attach properties of individuals or groups suspected of supporting Naxal or Maoist activities.

The bill states, “The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any organization to be an unlawful organization if it is satisfied that such organization is engaged in unlawful activities.”

Advisory Board: To provide oversight, the bill establishes an Advisory Board, chaired by a serving or retired Chief Justice of the High Court, with members including district magistrates and government pleaders. The board is tasked with reviewing cases to ensure the law’s application is justified.

Focus on ‘Urban Maoism’: The legislation zeroes in on what the government calls “urban Maoism,” alleging that urban-based networks provide ideological, logistical, or financial support to rural Naxal insurgencies. The bill’s preamble notes that such activities “are carried out under the garb of intellectual discourse, academic forums, or civil society activism.”

Why Was the Bill Introduced?

The Maharashtra government argues that the MSPS Bill fills a critical gap in existing laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Chief Minister Fadnavis has stated that while rural Naxalism has been significantly curtailed—from four districts to two talukas in Maharashtra—urban areas are emerging as new hubs for Left-wing extremism.

“These front organizations are brainwashing youth through academic institutions, online platforms, and cultural collectives,” Fadnavis said during the Assembly debate on July 10, 2025, emphasizing that the bill targets “passive militancy” that fuels “anti-Constitutional” ideologies.

The government claims that 64 organizations in Maharashtra have links to Naxal or Maoist groups, with six already banned in other states.

The bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons underscores this concern, stating, “The activities of such organizations are not adequately covered under the existing laws, necessitating a special legislation to curb their spread in urban and rural areas.”

The Context: What Is ‘Urban Maoism’?

The term “urban Maoism” or “urban Naxalism” gained traction following the 2018 Elgar Parishad case, where activists, academics, and lawyers were arrested for alleged Maoist links.

The government uses the term to describe urban-based support networks that allegedly facilitate rural Naxal insurgencies through propaganda, funding, or recruitment. These activities are said to occur in settings like universities, NGOs, and cultural groups.

However, the term lacks a clear legal definition, leading critics to argue it is a catch-all phrase used to target dissenters who challenge the state’s policies or ideology.

Why It Matters: The Debate and Implications

The MSPS Bill has ignited a fierce debate, with supporters and opponents sharply divided over its intent and potential impact:

Government’s Defense: Fadnavis has insisted that the bill is not meant to suppress free speech or Leftist ideology broadly but targets only those aiding armed insurgencies or anti-Constitutional activities. “The bill has robust safeguards, including the Advisory Board, to prevent misuse,” he stated in the Assembly.

The government also claims the legislation was shaped by over 12,000 public suggestions, reflecting a consultative process. Maharashtra becomes the fifth state—after Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, and Jharkhand—to enact such a public security law.

Opposition’s Concerns: Opposition parties, including the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance, have slammed the bill as a threat to democracy. NCP (Sharad Pawar group) leader Jitendra Awhad called it a “draconian law” that could turn Maharashtra into a “policing state.”

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray questioned its timing, suggesting it aims to “silence political opponents ahead of elections.” CPI(M) MLA Vinod Nikole argued that the vague definition of “unlawful activity” risks criminalizing legitimate dissent, stating, “This bill can be used to jail anyone who speaks against the government.”

Risk of Misuse: Legal experts and activists have raised alarms over the bill’s broad language, particularly the phrase “words, either spoken or written,” which could encompass criticism of the government. The lack of a precise definition for “urban Maoism” fuels fears that the law could be used to target students, journalists, or activists.

Some called the bill a “tool to crush free speech,” though others supported it as a necessary measure against extremism.