We celebrated Independence Day this month, the culmination of our freedom struggle. What is freedom and freedom? It does not matter from foreign rule and oppressive laws – which imposes them on us.

The Governor of Maharashtra, CP Radhakrishnan, is currently investigating a law passed by a state called ‘Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill’. I have written to the Governor on behalf of Amnesty International India, and asked him not to sign it and instead to deny his consent. A protest has been designed against those who are called ‘urban Naxalites’, the bill threatens constitutional and internationally protected human rights.

Naxalism is seen as a decades-old rural and communist-inspired movement. In the current discussion, ‘urban Naxalism’ possibly refers to the alleged support for this movement by intellectuals, academics and others.

There is no legal definition of the term ‘urban Naxalism’ in India. With high capacity for its vague language, discriminatory attention, absence of judicial inspection and ability, the bill risk criminalization of legitimate dissatisfaction in one of our largest states. It introduces overboard and ideologically biased provisions that pose an immediate threat to international and constitutionally protected rights.

As expected, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has claimed that the law will not be used to suppress the government critics. However, if there is no legal definition of the word ‘urban Naxal’ in India, what is this? It is a rhetoric and politically charged phrase – which is popular in media and political discourse, not jurisdiction. Its very ambiguity allows it to be armed against civil society, often faces peaceful dissatisfaction with traitors or terrorism.

There is a disturbed example. The Bhim Koregaon case, in which 16 activists were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act UAPA, showing that this label has been used to detain individuals for years without testing. Many of those accused were not associated with any work of violence, but only to express the expression of important ideas, advocate for marginalized communities, or protect civil freedom.

In particular, the arrest began during Fadnavis’ earlier tenure as Chief Minister in 2018. Seven years later, the trial has not started yet, six activists have been rejected in bail, and one of the accused, Father Stan Swamy, died in custody.

The ‘urban Naxal’ story has dangerously blurred the line between non -violent political opposition and violent extremism. This type of conflict is not only incompatible with the constitutional values of India, but also violates its international legal obligations.

There are other disturbing elements in the law, such as discrimination. Its early paragraphs identify “leftist extremist outfits or similar organizations” as its attention. This eliminates ideologies for criminalization and violates Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the same security under the law regardless of political opinion, and which India is a signator. Pencing an organization only to punish the membership of an organization, based on ideas without evidence of abetment, or in participation, violence is also a violation of the rights of Indians.

The law defines “illegal activity”, such as inconsistent and subjective words such as “a public system from danger” or “tendency to interfere in the administration of law”. These definitions may include peaceful opposition or civil disobedience, basic elements of our freedom struggle.

Section 3 gives executive the right to declare organizations “illegal”, which has no provision for early and fair judicial reviews. The Advisory Board includes only government appointments to review such announcements, meaning that they will be Kangaroo courts.

In the law allowing search and seizures on the basis of an officer’s “opinion” or “personal knowledge”, sections remove judicial security measures and open the door for arbitrary action. It violates the rights that guarantee appropriate testing and fixed procedure in discoveries, protecting individuals against illegal intervention with someone’s home, property and privacy.

Section 14 stops the appeal, while section 17 provides blanket immunity to government officials, even in cases of misuse. Such sections eliminate accountability.

As fashion has become, oppression of colonial style is also present in this law when people are jailed. Section 15, despite the ambiguity of their definitions, the bill presents all offenses under non-bailable and cognitive. This provides the facility of pre-testing detention for a long time without judicial inquiry.

At the top of everything else, the law is not required: India already has very restrictive terrorism and criminal laws, including UAPA, Mcoca and Indian Nyaya Sanhita, who criminalize the same or similar perceived conduct. The new bill adds another weapon to suppress dissatisfaction, converts the legal process into punishment and carries out civil freedom.

If signed and applied, the law under the guise of security represents a serious and unnecessary expansion of state power at the cost of fundamental rights. Away from the security of Maharashtra, it crimes for dissatisfaction, debate and accountability.

The misuse of vague words like ‘Urban Naxal’ has already caused a lot of damage. Accepting this bill will make a structure valid which enables abuse and impurities on justice.

This is why I have urged the Governor to withdraw the assurance of the bill, with extreme respect. The observation of Independence Day should not be limited to the flag-up and salute and symbolism of long speeches. Whatever should be seen is our constant commitment to freedom, security of civil freedom, conservation of human rights and access to justice. This law is a violation of all these and for this reason, there is a hope that it is not imposed on Indians.

Views are personal. Read more Patel’s writing came here