Kolkata, June 28 -- Ahead of the BJP-led West Bengal government's move to introduce the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-social Activities Bill, 2026 in the Assembly on Monday, legal experts have questioned the constitutional validity of several of its provisions, saying they raise concerns similar to issues before the Supreme Court in a challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Supreme Court recently referred the challenge to a three-judge Bench, observing that its decision could affect similar laws in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It also impleaded the Union Government after the petitioner contended that the UP law was repugnant to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with organised crime.
The petition alleges the UP law permits a person to be branded a "gangster" without objective standards, confers excessive executive discretion, dilutes the presumption of innocence and violates Articles 14, 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution.
Legal experts say some provisions of the proposed Bengal law may invite comparable scrutiny. The Bill contains an expansive definition of "anti-social activities" and defines a "goonda" to include habitual offenders, persons charge-sheeted for specified offences and even one "generally reputed to be desperate and dangerous to the community", a phrase they say leaves scope for subjective executive assessment.
The Bill also permits preventive detention for up to 12 months, fresh detention orders after revocation or expiry of an earlier order, and protects detention orders even if some grounds are found defective. It allows the government to withhold certain facts on grounds of public order, public safety, internal or national security or to protect confidential sources, and empowers the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police or an authorised police officer to extern a "goonda" from a specified area for up to one year. Lawyers say these provisions raise questions over executive discretion and restrictions on personal liberty.
CPIM leader and senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya said existing criminal laws were sufficient to deal with offences and alleged the Bill's broad definition of a "goonda" could be misused against those opposing hawker and slum eviction drives. He said the legislation would be challenged if enacted.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra described the Bill as "even more stringent" than the Emergency-era Maintenance of Internal Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Meanwhile, the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill is also expected during Monday's Budget session. It seeks to replace religion-based personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption with a common civil framework. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari said it would broadly follow the model adopted in Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Assam, while state BJP president Samik Bhattacharya said Scheduled Tribes would remain exempt. The Trinamool Congress has announced plans to oppose the Bill inside and outside the Assembly.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.