Cong asks CLP leader Wadettiwar to explain passage of security bill sans protest

Mumbai: The Maharashtra Congress has sought an explanation from the party's legislature body on the passage of the special public security bill in the state assembly last week without any protest from the grand old party.

State party chief Harshwardhan Sapkal wrote a letter to Congress Legislature Party leader Vijay Wadettiwar on Monday to explain how the bill was allowed to be passed without the Congress registering its opposition, sources said on Thursday.

Sapkal has sought an explanation from Wadettiwar on directives of the party high command, they said.

Last week, both houses of the state legislature passed the contentious Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, which seeks to prevent unlawful activities of Left-wing extremist organisations with focus on 'urban Naxalism'.

The bill, which has stringent provisions, including hefty fines and jail term up to seven years for those found guilty, has sparked criticism from civil society groups and opposition parties, who view it as a tool to suppress dissent under the pretext of national security.

When the bill was to be taken up for passage in the state assembly on July 10, notes containing pointers to speak in the House were circulated to all the party MLAs, the sources said.

"But our CLP leader remained absent that day," a source said.

The next day, the Congress MLCs protested and staged a walkout in the Upper House after voicing their opposition to the bill, as the party issued a strict directive that what happened in the assembly should not be repeated in the council, as per the sources.

On June 30, when All India Congress Committee's Maharashtra in-charge Ramesh Chennithala called a meeting of the state party leaders, it was decided to oppose the bill.

However, in the assembly, only the lone CPI (M) MLA had opposed the bill.

Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Bhaskar Jadhav on Wednesday criticised the proposed law as excessively harsh and undemocratic.

He crticised the Mahayuti government for failing to provide any data or evidence to justify the need for the bill, calling the legislation "worse than British-era laws".