Two bills passed this week by the West Bengal Assembly – the Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, and the Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026 – risk arbitrary application of state powers. While the first bill expands powers to combat crime and “anti-social activities”, the second allows the state government to recover compensation for property damage caused during riots and violent protests. Both pieces of legislation contain stringent provisions that bypass standard democratic procedures. Notably, the Public Safety Bill authorises the government to enforce preventive detention for up to 12 months without trial. The Bill’s broad use of terms such as “anti-social activity” and “goonda” makes it vulnerable to potential misuse against political dissenters or others targeted for government action. Additionally, it empowers the state to attach properties allegedly linked to these activities, raising concerns over civil liberties.
The Bill explicitly names several activities while leaving room for many more to fall under its purview. This may encourage defining dissent and protests as anti-social behaviour. While it proposes advisory boards to review applications of the detainees, it bars access to legal counsel without the board’s approval and mandates confidential proceedings, making the process opaque and undermining due process. Critics have drawn sharp comparisons with the National Security Act, 1980, and the colonial-era Bengal Regulation III of 1818, under which freedom fighters were indefinitely detained or deported.
Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has assured that the Bill will not be misused. However, such assurances ring hollow given the government’s record of weaponising existing laws against political opponents. The Maintenance of Public Order Bill seeks to establish a statutory claims commission to assess and recover compensation for damage to public and private property during riots, unlawful assemblies, and violent protests. Its powers extend beyond those directly involved in the violence to organisers, financiers, and others who may be held financially liable. While framed as a mechanism to fix responsibility, these provisions raise concerns about potential misuse against politicians in the opposition ranks, activists, and citizens protesting government policies.
The broad wording of the Bill enables arbitrary action, with limited safeguards or effective redress systems. The provisions on preventive detention may facilitate executive overreach at the expense of civil liberties. Preventive detention has long been viewed with constitutional scepticism, and courts have cautioned against its misuse. By proposing a stronger statutory basis to exercise such powers, the West Bengal government has invited legal scrutiny, making constitutional challenges to the legislation almost inevitable. (Source: DH)
