Pradeep Ramteke
Chief Editor
The Maharashtra Special Public Safety Act denies the fundamental and important rights of all citizens of the country as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
At the same time, this law grants special powers to the Maharashtra government and officials in the state of Maharashtra to suppress democracy and deny the rights of citizens.
Basically,this Maharashtra Special Public Safety Act is unconstitutional, that is, it is an anti-people law. The Government of India and the state government cannot make such a law that suppresses democracy and Indian citizens.
The Indian Constitution has made it clear that the Government of India and the State Government should make new laws keeping in mind the best interests of the country and its citizens,and while making laws,the law should be read in the Gram Sabha for 6 months.If the people feel that the said law is in their interest,they will pass a resolution through the Gram Sabha or pass a resolution against the law and the resolution passed in the Gram Sabha through the District Collector will send it to His Excellency the President and His Excellency the Governor.
However, “When the Joint Medical Committee for Public Safety included MLAs from the ruling party along with MLAs from the Maha Vikas Aghadi, why did they not raise objections against this bill?” This is a serious question.
Therefore,it would not be wrong to say that the MLAs of the ruling party and the Mahavikas Aghadi are the killers of democracy and citizens.
The Joint Medical Committee on Public Safety included Mahavikas Aghadi MLAs Nana Patole, Vijay Wadettiwar, Satej Patil (Congress), Jayant Patil, Jitendra Awhad, (Nationalist Congress Party Sharad Chandra Pawar), and Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council Ambadas Danve (Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray). It has come to light that they have not raised any objections against the Public Safety Act.
Similarly,the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Act was unanimously passed in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, denying the fundamental rights of the citizens of the state of Maharashtra, by MLAs from both the ruling and opposition parties.
Public sentiments are now emerging that the MLAs of Maharashtra state have committed a greater crime than passing an anti-people law through the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Act.
After the citizens of Maharashtra are in a dilemma, the people of Maharashtra will surely rise up against this law! But the ruling and opposition party leaders, opposition party MLAs, opposition party leaders, and ruling party leaders have so far succeeded in misleading the citizens of Maharashtra and compromising their fundamental rights under this law.
Experts, knowledgeable and learned personalities are of the opinion that rather than being mere talkative leaders,party leaders and people’s representatives,they should work for the public interest and protection within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
The citizens of Maharashtra should understand in time that their opinion is based on continuous public interest and protection…
The citizens of the country want security, but why don’t the MLAs, MPs, Prime Ministers, and Chief Ministers understand that their freedom,freedom of expression, political freedom, religious freedom, national freedom, educational freedom, economic freedom, freedom of rights, personal freedom, student expression, opinion, right to equality, fundamental rights, right against exploitation, cultural rights, not by denying or strangling these rights?
At the same time, considering the overall interest and supreme security of the citizens of the country,His Excellency the President and His Excellency the Governor should sign the acts passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the Vidhan Sabha and the Legislative Council,keeping in mind the essence of the Indian Constitution…
But this does not seem to be happening in India…Indian constitutionalist Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was aware that the central and state governments and their own party’s elected representatives, the President, and the Governors appointed by the Government of India, could go ahead and give their consent to laws against Indian citizens, so he gave the Supreme Court the power to “suppress laws against the people.” The important power granted to the Supreme Court by the Indian Constitution still protects the citizens of the country to some extent.
Assuming that the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Act will not survive the Supreme Court and that the people of Maharashtra will go ahead and reject this law, will the people of Maharashtra reject all the MLAs who passed this law in the next assembly elections? The reality regarding this should be brought to the attention of the people of Maharashtra by the Vanchit, Bahujan Samaj Party, Left parties, Bharat Mukti Morcha, Panthers, and various social organizations. These are critical times.“Public Safety or Public Control?”
Constitutionalist Counterargument on Maharashtra Public Safety Act….
Security is needed, but not at the cost of freedom!….
The ‘Maharashtra Public Security Act 2024’, introduced in the Maharashtra legislature and recently passed, has brought a mace on civil liberties in the state. The original purpose of this law is to “maintain public order,” but behind it, the seeds of the controllative and anti-citizenship mindset of those in power are clearly visible.This is not just a law, but an ideology – which, in the name of ‘security’, attacks the very foundations of democracy.
It should be clearly understood that this bill is not just a collection of clauses; it is a conspiracy to destroy individual freedom,freedom of expression and democracy as a whole.
Summary of the bill….
(A look at the main clauses)
1. Power to take ‘preventive action against suspicious persons’ given to District Collectors and Police Officers…
2. The ability to deport individuals who pose a ‘threat to public peace’ without redress….
3. Prohibitory detention, arrest, detention on individuals or groups…
4. Rights to take action on Facebook, social media posts…
5. Provision to keep an eye on activists who ‘create unrest and anti-government sentiments in the minds of the public’…
As soon as I read this, what comes to mind – is this a bill that upholds the values of the Indian Constitution or a return to the British rule that labeled Birsa Munda, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru as ‘anarchists’
Inconsistency with constitutional values…
1. Article 19: Bill that curtails freedom of expression: Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of expression. However, this bill paves the way for punishing that expression by declaring it ‘anarchic’.
If a social worker criticizes government policy, he is considered a ‘threat to public order’.
2. Article 14 and 21: Equality and Personal Liberty: Control over ‘where I go, whom I meet, what I say’ of my own free will is against the fundamental rights of the Constitution. But this law has given the police and district collectors the power to send such persons out of the village or keep them away from jobs.
Warning signs in history…
1. Memories of the British-era ‘Rowlett Act’..
In 1919, the British introduced the “Rowlett Act”, which allowed Indians to be arrested without any charges.
The preventive arrest, deportation without remedy, in today’s ‘Public Safety Bill’ seems to be a modern version of that era.
2. Repression during the Emergency…
During the Emergency of 1975, when journalists, writers, and activists were imprisoned for “national security,” the same thing seems to be happening again in the name of public safety.Global context: Global resolutions objecting to such laws in democracies…
1. In the European Union, the Human Rights Commission considers such laws to be preventive oppression.
2. The UN Human Rights Council has clarified that “Public order laws must not override fundamental freedoms.”
3. The US Supreme Court (Brandenburg v. Ohio) ruled that a person cannot be criminalized simply for expressing anti-government views.
What are the potential risks of the bill?
Cases filed against journalists, expulsion of activists,political vendetta against opponents,suppression of protest marches, crimes against those posting on social media.Ideological conflict in a democracy happens ‘through voice’. Will it now happen ‘through the roof’?…
Constitutionalist Counterargument: It is a responsibility to oppose…
In a state of law, the government is the servant of the people, not the master. It is the responsibility of journalists, writers, literary figures, and folk artists to criticize the government,make people aware of their rights, and vent their discontent. It is through such opposition that democracy becomes more and more prosperous and develops.
This law views people with suspicion. This is a direct affront to the principle of “Presumption of Innocence”.
So, what should we do now?..
This law needs to be declared anti-democratic.
— It is essential for conscious citizens, lawyers, journalists, activists, and students to raise their voices of opposition.
— The Governor should send this bill back to the Rajya Sabha for reconsideration.
— The path to filing a petition in the Supreme Court within the framework of the Constitution is also open.
— Law for the people or law against the people and violation of the fundamental rights of the people?
— The Public Safety Act is a ‘public repression law’.
— This is not a law, this is a dictatorial fatwa that is a threat to democracy.Break the silence…
“The sword of revolution is defeated by the sword of thought,” says Shaheed Bhagat Singh. Behind all the changes in the world is thought. All the changes in the world have been born from freedom of expression.
We have a glorious history in which the revolution for Swarajya in Maharashtra also took place through the anti-exploitation and egalitarian ideas of Shahjiraje-Jijau-Shivaba. Today, in the same Maharashtra,a law has been introduced that seeks to suppress the voice of the common man.
Freedom has been written not only by the strength of soldiers on the battlefield, but also by the pens of thinkers and the blood of activists.Today, the decision to rewrite or destroy that history depends on our ‘fearless thoughts’ rather than our ‘unrestrained voice’.
Therefore,let us speak and express ourselves fearlessly, and let us oppose the law that restricts those who speak, write, and express themselves through all democratic means, said Adv. Sheetal Shamrao Chavan.(Md. 9921657346) appeals to all the people of Maharashtra state.
