West Bengal Public Safety Bill 2026 Explained: Preventive Detention, Property Seizure and Public Order Law
The West Bengal Legislative Assembly on 29 June 2026 passed two significant pieces of legislation aimed at strengthening the state’s legal framework against organized criminal activity, public disorder, and destruction of property. The enactments, namely the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 and the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026, marked one of the most extensive revisions to West Bengal’s public order laws since the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1972. Together, the two measures introduced provisions for the preventive detention of persons designated as “goondas,” recovery of compensation for damage caused during riots or violent protests, attachment and auction of property belonging to offenders, and establishment of a statutory mechanism to adjudicate compensation claims. The legislation reflected a broader administrative emphasis on preventive policing and financial accountability for public disorder.
The passage of the bills occurred during the Monsoon Session of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly in Kolkata, following extensive debate over the balance between public security and civil liberties. The government argued that existing legal provisions were insufficient to address organized violence, repeated vandalism, destruction of infrastructure, and attacks on law enforcement personnel witnessed during episodes of communal unrest, political agitation, and unlawful assemblies over the preceding decade. According to the government, repeated incidents involving large-scale destruction of public and private assets had exposed limitations in existing statutes, particularly regarding preventive detention and recovery of financial losses.
The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 introduced a statutory definition of a “goonda.” The legislation provided that an individual could be identified as such if the person, acting individually or as a member, leader, financier, promoter, facilitator, or participant of a group, gang, syndicate, or organized network, habitually committed, attempted to commit, abetted, financed, promoted, or facilitated activities considered anti-social. Unlike several earlier preventive detention statutes in India that specifically listed qualifying offences, the bill did not comprehensively define the expression “anti-social activities,” thereby granting wider discretion to authorities responsible for implementation.
One of the principal features of the legislation was the authorization of preventive detention for a period extending up to twelve months. Preventive detention differs from punitive imprisonment in that it is intended to prevent anticipated disturbances to public order rather than punish completed criminal acts. The concept has existed in Indian constitutional jurisprudence since the adoption of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, with Article 22 permitting preventive detention under specified legal safeguards. Parliament and several state legislatures have enacted preventive detention laws at different times, including legislation addressing national security, smuggling, black marketing, and organized crime. The West Bengal legislation extended this approach specifically to organized anti-social activities affecting public safety within the state.
The bill also contained provisions concerning legal representation before the advisory mechanisms reviewing preventive detention orders. Individuals categorized as presenting a higher level of threat under the legislation were not permitted to engage legal practitioners of their own choice during specified proceedings and instead could receive legal assistance only through government-sponsored legal aid arrangements. This provision became one of the most debated aspects of the legislation during Assembly discussions because of its implications for procedural fairness and access to independent legal representation.
Another important component of the legislative package was the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which substantially amended the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1972. The amendment introduced explicit financial liability upon persons found responsible for arson, vandalism, rioting, or destruction of public and private property. Rather than relying solely upon criminal prosecution, the amended law created an independent mechanism for determining and recovering compensation from offenders responsible for property damage.
To administer compensation claims, the legislation established a Claims Commission empowered to assess losses suffered by government departments, local authorities, commercial establishments, institutions, and private individuals. The Commission received authority to examine evidence relating to damaged assets, determine financial liability, quantify compensation, and supervise recovery proceedings. The recoverable amount could include the value of destroyed or damaged property together with associated costs determined under the statutory framework.
Where compensation remained unpaid, authorities received powers to attach movable and immovable property, seize financial assets, and conduct public auctions to recover outstanding amounts. These recovery mechanisms represented one of the strongest financial enforcement provisions introduced in West Bengal’s public order legislation. The government argued that criminal penalties alone had proved insufficient to discourage repeated destruction of infrastructure during violent disturbances and that financial accountability would provide an effective deterrent.
The legislation also aligned offences falling within its scope with the newly enacted national criminal codes, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 respectively. This alignment reflected broader legal reforms undertaken across India following the implementation of the new criminal justice framework during 2024, ensuring consistency between state-level public order legislation and the revised national criminal statutes.
During legislative debate, the government justified the enactment by referring to multiple episodes of violence, communal disturbances, and political unrest occurring in different districts of West Bengal between 2019 and 2025. Particular reference was made to violence associated with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, demonstrations concerning amendments relating to waqf administration, communal disturbances in Murshidabad district, attacks upon police establishments, and destruction of transport infrastructure.
Among the incidents cited were disturbances in Dhuliyan, located in Murshidabad district, where communal violence reportedly resulted in deaths, extensive damage to residential and commercial property, and destruction valued between approximately ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore. The murders of Haragobinda Das and Chandan Das during communal disturbances were cited as examples illustrating the government’s argument that stronger preventive legislation had become necessary to protect vulnerable communities and maintain law and order.
Reference was also made to incidents in Mothabari, where more than eighty commercial establishments were reportedly looted or set on fire during communal disturbances. Government speakers argued that large-scale destruction of commercial property imposed severe financial burdens upon victims while exposing inadequacies in existing legal mechanisms for recovering compensation from offenders.
The Assembly debate additionally referred to political violence in Diamond Harbour, Nandigram, Asansol, Park Circus, and Santragachi. According to the government’s account, repeated incidents involving attacks on government infrastructure, police facilities, railway property, buses, and private establishments demonstrated a continuing pattern of organized violence extending beyond isolated criminal offences.
Particular emphasis was placed upon violence associated with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act during December 2019, when railway stations, railway tracks, public transport vehicles, and government installations in several parts of West Bengal were damaged. The government also referred to demonstrations during 2022 arising from controversial public remarks concerning Prophet Muhammad, during which communal unrest affected several districts and resulted in damage to public infrastructure.
Another aspect highlighted during the debate involved attacks on police personnel and police establishments. The government cited incidents involving vandalism of a police outpost in Asansol, situated in Paschim Bardhaman district, and disturbances in Park Circus, Kolkata, as evidence supporting stronger legal protection for law enforcement agencies. It was argued that attacks upon police stations, vehicles, and officers directly undermined public administration and required enhanced legal deterrence.
Opposition members questioned several provisions of the bills, particularly the breadth of the statutory definition of “goonda,” the absence of a detailed definition of “anti-social activities,” and the preventive detention powers extending up to one year. Concerns were raised that broadly worded provisions could potentially encompass political activists, student organizations, protest leaders, trade unions, or participants in civil rights movements. Questions were also raised regarding safeguards against misuse by executive authorities and the adequacy of judicial oversight over preventive detention decisions.
Another point of debate concerned limitations on legal representation for certain detainees. Opposition legislators argued that restricting the right to appoint legal counsel of one’s own choosing could affect principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Calls were made for additional safeguards, periodic reviews of detention orders, and clearer statutory definitions to reduce administrative discretion.
The government responded by emphasizing that the legislation targeted habitual offenders involved in organized criminal activity rather than ordinary citizens participating peacefully in democratic processes. It maintained that preventive detention would operate only where authorities possessed material indicating likely threats to public safety, public peace, or maintenance of public order. The government further argued that recovery of compensation from offenders reflected the principle that those responsible for destruction should bear the financial consequences of their actions rather than transferring the burden to taxpayers or victims.
Historically, legislation authorizing recovery of compensation for damage to public property has developed gradually within Indian jurisprudence. Following recommendations made after repeated incidents of violent protests and communal disturbances, the Supreme Court of India formulated guidelines concerning assessment and recovery of compensation for destruction of public and private property during mass disturbances. Several states subsequently introduced legislative or administrative measures incorporating mechanisms for financial recovery from persons responsible for vandalism. The West Bengal amendments represented the state’s most comprehensive statutory adoption of this principle.
The enactment of the two laws reflected broader developments in public order legislation across India during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. Increasing urbanization, expansion of organized criminal networks, frequent political mobilization, communal tensions, and large-scale public demonstrations prompted several states to review preventive detention statutes and compensation mechanisms. Similar legal approaches emphasizing preventive detention, organized crime control, attachment of assets, and recovery of damages have appeared in varying forms in different jurisdictions, although specific provisions differ according to local legislative priorities.
The legislative package also demonstrated the growing integration of preventive policing with financial enforcement. Rather than relying exclusively upon criminal prosecution after offences had occurred, the laws combined preventive detention powers with mechanisms allowing attachment, confiscation, and auction of assets belonging to individuals held responsible for organized violence or property destruction. This reflected an administrative strategy intended both to prevent future disturbances and ensure financial restitution for losses sustained during public disorder.
Following their passage in the Assembly on 29 June 2026, the bills proceeded through the constitutional process required for enactment into law, including gubernatorial assent where applicable. Once brought into force, implementation would involve coordination among the Home Department, police authorities, district administrations, investigating agencies, judicial institutions, legal aid authorities, and the newly constituted Claims Commission responsible for adjudicating compensation disputes.
The enactment of the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2026 and the amended West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act therefore represented a major legislative milestone in the evolution of West Bengal’s public order framework. By combining preventive detention, expanded executive authority, financial liability for property damage, statutory claims adjudication, and alignment with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the legislation significantly reshaped the legal architecture governing public safety, organized anti-social activity, and recovery of losses arising from riots, violent protests, unlawful assemblies, communal disturbances, and other threats to public order within the state.
Sarvarthapedia Conceptual Network: West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026
Core Concept
- West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2026
- West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Act, 2026
- Public Order in West Bengal
- Preventive Detention in India
- Anti-Social Activities
- Compensation for Damage to Public Property
- Law and Order Administration
- State Security Legislation
- Criminal Justice Reforms in India (2023–2026)
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Constitution of India
- Article 14
- Article 19
- Article 21
- Article 22
- Fundamental Rights
- Sahib Singh Dugal v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 313
- Preventive Detention under the Constitution
- Rule of Law
- Due Process in India
- Legal Aid Services
- Advisory Boards under Preventive Detention Laws
Criminal Law Framework
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Historical)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Historical)
- Criminal Procedure in India
- Criminal Liability
- Organized Crime
- Habitual Offenders
- Public Safety Laws
Legislative History
West Bengal Public Order Laws
- West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1972
- Public Safety Legislation in West Bengal
- Legislative Assembly of West Bengal
- Monsoon Session of the West Bengal Assembly
- Evolution of Public Order Laws in West Bengal
- State Police Powers
- Preventive Policing
Related Indian Laws
- National Security Act, 1980
- Preventive Detention Laws in India
- Anti-Organized Crime Laws
- State Security Acts
- Maintenance of Public Order Laws
- Public Property Protection Laws
Public Administration
Government Institutions
- Home Department, Government of West Bengal
- West Bengal Police
- District Administration
- Claims Commission
- Legal Services Authorities
- Judiciary in West Bengal
- Advisory Boards
- Law Enforcement Agencies
Administrative Powers
- Preventive Arrest
- Preventive Detention
- Property Attachment
- Property Confiscation
- Public Auction of Seized Assets
- Recovery Proceedings
- Compensation Assessment
- Law Enforcement Administration
Criminal Justice Concepts
Criminal Activities
- Organized Crime
- Criminal Syndicates
- Gang Activity
- Habitual Criminals
- Financial Support of Crime
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Rioting
- Arson
- Vandalism
- Public Mischief
- Unlawful Assembly
- Destruction of Public Property
- Damage to Private Property
Preventive Measures
- Preventive Policing
- Risk Assessment
- Public Peace
- Public Safety
- Law and Order
- Internal Security
- Preventive Justice
- Security Administration
Property and Compensation
Property Protection
- Public Property
- Private Property
- Compensation Law
- Civil Liability
- Financial Recovery
- Asset Attachment
- Asset Auction
- Damage Assessment
- Compensation Claims
- Restitution
- Victim Compensation
Claims Commission
- Compensation Adjudication
- Recovery of Public Loss
- Financial Accountability
- Administrative Tribunals
- Damage Valuation
Constitutional Debates
Civil Liberties
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of Assembly
- Peaceful Protest
- Political Demonstrations
- Student Movements
- Civil Rights
- Human Rights
- Access to Justice
- Legal Representation
- Natural Justice
- Judicial Review
Governance
- Executive Authority
- Police Powers
- Administrative Discretion
- Checks and Balances
- Constitutional Safeguards
- Public Accountability
- Democratic Governance
Historical Events
West Bengal
- Anti-CAA Protests (2019)
- Public Disorder during Anti-CAA Movement
- Santragachi Road Blockade
- Murshidabad Violence
- Dhuliyan Violence
- Mothabari Violence
- Diamond Harbour Political Violence
- Nandigram Political Violence
- Asansol Police Outpost Attack
- Park Circus Disturbances
National Context
- Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
- Waqf Law Amendments
- Public Protests in India
- Communal Violence in India
- Railway Property Damage
- Public Infrastructure Protection
Geographic Connections
West Bengal
- Kolkata
- Murshidabad
- Dhuliyan
- Mothabari
- Diamond Harbour
- Nandigram
- Asansol
- Paschim Bardhaman
- Park Circus
- Santragachi
- Howrah
Political Institutions
Legislature
- West Bengal Legislative Assembly
- State Legislation
- Bill
- Act
- Legislative Debate
- Legislative Amendment
- Statutory Law
- State Government
Governance
- Chief Minister of West Bengal
- Home Portfolio
- Cabinet Government
- State Administration
- Public Policy
- Internal Administration
Public Security
Security Concepts
- Public Safety
- Public Peace
- Internal Security
- Riot Control
- Crowd Management
- Police Protection
- Emergency Powers
- Security Governance
- Community Protection
Judicial and Legal Institutions
Courts
- Supreme Court of India
- High Courts in India
- Constitutional Interpretation
- Judicial Oversight
- Judicial Safeguards
- Preventive Detention Jurisprudence
- Public Interest Litigation
- Constitutional Bench Decisions
Comparative Topics
Indian Legal System
- Preventive Detention Laws in Indian States
- Organized Crime Control Laws
- Anti-Riot Legislation
- Public Property Damage Laws
- Compensation Recovery Laws
- State Police Legislation
- Internal Security Laws
- Criminal Justice Reform in India
Related Encyclopedic Clusters
Law and Constitution Cluster
- Constitution of India
- Fundamental Rights
- Preventive Detention
- Rule of Law
- Criminal Justice System
- Police Powers
- Judicial Review
- Public Administration
Governance Cluster
- Government of West Bengal
- Legislative Assembly
- Home Department
- State Police
- Administrative Law
- Public Policy
- Law Enforcement
Security Cluster
- Public Order
- Internal Security
- Organized Crime
- Rioting
- Unlawful Assembly
- Communal Violence
- Public Safety
- Civil Disturbance
Criminal Law Cluster
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Criminal Procedure
- Organized Criminal Networks
- Habitual Offenders
- Property Crimes
- Compensation Law
- Preventive Justice
West Bengal History Cluster
- Political History of West Bengal
- Law and Order in West Bengal
- Murshidabad
- Kolkata
- Asansol
- Howrah
- Nandigram
- Diamond Harbour
- Anti-CAA Protests
- Public Disorder in West Bengal
