The passage of the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 is purportedly aimed at maintaining public order. The goal is commendable: public order should not be brought under duress. The concern, though, lies in the possibility of overreach. The state government has argued that existing laws have proved to be inadequate against organised criminal networks, extortion, illegal mining, land grabbing and violence that damages public and private property. The legislation empowers the State to order preventive detention for up to 12 months, authorises district magistrates, police commissioners and designated senior police officers to issue detention orders, enables search and seizure of property linked to alleged ‘anti-social activities’ and permits the attachment of assets of absconding suspects. Worryingly, the scope of ‘anti-social activities’ has not been clearly defined, leaving room for mischief. Similar laws in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu present preventive detention and externment as indispensable tools against habitual offenders and organised crime.
Experiences from these states, however, offer a cautionary lesson. Preventive detention laws have repeatedly drawn judicial criticism for arbitrary application against political activists, protesters and individuals with tenuous criminal records. Courts, for instance, have questioned the indiscriminate use of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act against persons without stained criminal records. In Tamil Nadu, the high court has repeatedly quashed detention orders under the state’s Goondas Act for procedural lapses and lack of sufficient grounds. Telangana’s externment law was controversially invoked against the film critic, Kathi Mahesh, after remarks on religion, raising concerns over its use to suppress speech. The West Bengal law is far from foolproof. Its definitions confer wide discretion upon the executive, allowing preventive detention to be imposed without trial. Particularly troubling is the restriction on certain detainees from engaging a lawyer of their choice and confining them to government legal aid, a departure from the constitutional guarantee of legal representation of one’s choice under Article 22(1). Broad executive discretion, combined with weak procedural safeguards, creates fertile ground for State abuse: would dissent and civil protest remain unscathed? Governments have a duty to combat organised crime. But that objective cannot justify legislation that places extraordinary powers in executive hands with inadequate constitutional restraints.
