Maharashtra's 2025 Special Public Security Act: Disguising the suppression of opposition as safety measures

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPS) of 2025, enacted on July 9, 2025, has been met with criticism and debate. The Act, designed to maintain public order and security, has been accused of being overly repressive and redundant, given existing statutes such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023.

One of the primary concerns is the Act's limitations on freedom of speech and expression. Under Section 2, the Act forbids speech and expression that "promotes or advocates disobedience to the law and its established institutions," a criterion that has been criticised for its ambiguity. The Act also penalises communication that is not excessively unpleasant or threatening, without providing additional clarification of these words.

The Act also criminalises membership, meetings, financing, publication, and sponsorship of any "unlawful" association. It grants the executive the power to deem organisations "unlawful" without Advisory Board approval, a decision that is not subject to court review, unlike the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The MSPS empowers the State government and District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to seize an unlawful organisation's notified places, remove individuals from them, confiscate movable property in them, seize its funds, and restrict access to them. The Act also limits legal remedies by preventing district courts from hearing petitions and limiting judicial review to High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has held that officers exercising powers under specific legislative frameworks must adhere to the general procedural laws such as the CrPC when performing searches. Failure to comply with procedural mandates can invalidate the search and any subsequent legal actions derived from it. However, the MSPS does not mandate any court review for activities such as searches.

The Act allows petitions to the High Court contesting government decisions regarding illegal entity designation or extension and cash seizure. Yet, the addition of the MSPS creates a redundant and excessively repressive legal tool, as it may not satisfy the criteria for a threat to public order and may significantly restrict protected and innocuous communication, contravening Articles 14 and 21.

Moreover, the Act allows government personnel "in good faith" blanket immunity, a provision that has raised concerns about the potential for misuse. The Act's ambiguous and expansive criteria may result in a chilling effect, causing individuals to self-censor their speech to evade potential offences.

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India noted that a lack of definition for words may significantly restrict protected and innocuous communication and that limitations on freedom of speech and expression must have a direct link to threats to public order. The Act's broad criteria for defining an "unlawful" association and the potential for misuse have led to concerns that it criminalises dissent under the guise of public safety.

As of now, there are no relevant search results providing information about organisations behind the resistance to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025, nor about the government's response. The Act's implementation and its impact on civil liberties continue to be subjects of intense debate and scrutiny.