West Bengal’s controversial Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Act, widely known as the ‘Goonda Bill’, came into force after midnight on Monday, giving the BJP government wide-ranging powers to act against organised crime and anti-social activities.
The law allows the government to order preventive detention, confiscate property linked to offences under the Act and remove suspected troublemakers from specific areas. While the state government says the legislation is aimed at improving law and order, opposition parties have criticised it as draconian and warned that it could be misused against political opponents.
The West Bengal Assembly passed the Bill on June 29, following which it received the Governor’s assent. With the notification now in force, authorities can begin implementing its provisions across the state.
According to the government, the Act is intended to strengthen public safety by cracking down on organised criminal networks, illegal mining, unauthorised sand extraction, wildlife-related offences and other activities that create fear or disrupt normal life.
Preventive Detention Among Most Controversial Provisions
One of the most debated features of the law is the provision allowing the government to place a person under preventive detention for up to one year if it believes their activities pose a threat to public safety.
The provision has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties and sections of civil society, who argue that it could be used to detain political rivals or critics without trial.
The BJP government, however, has rejected those allegations, saying the Act contains safeguards to prevent arbitrary action.
Under the law, every preventive detention order must be reviewed by an advisory board headed by a serving or former Calcutta High Court judge, along with two members qualified to become High Court judges. A detained person will also have the right to present their case before the board.
Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has defended the legislation, saying it is meant to target habitual offenders rather than ordinary citizens.
The Act also empowers the government to confiscate the property of those accused under the law by invoking relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It further allows district magistrates, police commissioners and senior police officers to issue externment orders, directing individuals to leave a particular area or even an entire district for up to one year if they are believed to pose a threat to public order.
In addition, the law authorises police to bar certain individuals from entering specified areas and provides legal protection to government officials carrying out actions under the Act.
Government Defends Law, Opposition Warns Of Misuse
Defending the legislation after it came into force, West Bengal minister Dilip Ghosh said the government had introduced the law to deal with politically protected criminal elements.
“The people of West Bengal are agitated and tired of the hooliganism they have had to witness for so many years now, especially since most of these thugs were politically connected. To curb this menace, we had to bring in a new law, and it will be strictly implemented… Common people who are still scared to speak out must come forward and file FIRs. The law will take its course,” he told news agency ANI.
While introducing the Bill in the Assembly last month, Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari argued that similar laws are already in force in several other states and accused previous governments of failing to curb political violence.
“Before this is implemented, let me point out that the previous government took no action. The people of Bengal have rejected you through EVM. You have managed to form an opposition, but it is not a strong one. This bill has already been introduced in several states under different names; Maharashtra, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand have implemented it,” he had said.
The government maintains that the Act is solely intended to improve public safety, maintain law and order, and dismantle organised criminal networks. Opposition parties, however, continue to argue that the law’s broad powers require close scrutiny to ensure they are not misused.