President Returns Bengal’s ‘Anti-Goonda’ Bill Over Conflict With Central Law

Kolkata: The West Bengal government’s proposed ‘anti-goonda’ legislation has hit a legal hurdle after President Droupadi Murmu returned the Bill for reconsideration, following objections from the Centre over a provision that could overlap with existing central legislation on narcotics-related offences.

The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, was passed by the state Assembly in June with the stated objective of preventing and controlling anti-social activities. The Bill seeks to define ‘goonda’ and ‘anti-social activity’ and provides for measures including restrictions on the movement of persons considered to be involved in such activities.

The immediate issue concerns Section 2(d)(iii)(B) of the proposed legislation. According to the Centre’s note, the provision includes within the definition of a ‘goonda’ a person who commits, attempts to commit, abets, promotes, finances or facilitates an offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Centre has pointed out that a separate central law, the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), already provides a preventive-detention framework for people involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

According to the Centre, the proposed West Bengal provision could consequently create an overlapping or parallel preventive-detention mechanism for drug-related offences. This, it said, could raise an issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with conflicts between laws made by Parliament and state legislatures on matters falling within the Concurrent List.

The Centre has therefore recommended removing the reference to offences under the NDPS Act from the relevant provision to avoid duplication and potential conflict with the existing central framework. President Murmu has returned the Bill to the state government for reconsideration rather than granting assent in its present form.

The development does not mean that the proposed legislation has been permanently rejected. A senior state government official cited by The Indian Express said the Bill could be brought back before the Assembly after making the necessary changes and subsequently sent again for presidential assent.

The latest development also clarifies the legal status of the proposed legislation. Despite earlier public statements that the ‘Goonda Daman’ legislation had already become law, the Calcutta High Court was informed in August that the Bill had not yet received presidential assent and had therefore not come into force.

On August 6, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed three public interest litigations challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation, holding that the challenges were premature because the Bill had not yet become an enforceable law. The court indicated that a fresh challenge could be considered if and when the Bill receives the necessary assent and becomes law.

The Bill itself contains several significant provisions. Among other measures, it proposes giving district magistrates and police commissioners powers to restrict a person from entering or remaining in a specified area, district or districts for a period of up to one year if the statutory conditions are met.

The legislation was presented by the BJP-led state government as a measure to tackle organised anti-social activities and maintain public order. Opposition parties and civil-rights advocates, however, have raised concerns about the extent of executive powers proposed under the Bill and the potential implications for individual liberty.

For the moment, the legislation remains a Bill and is not an enforceable Act. The state government will have to reconsider the provision flagged by the Centre, make any proposed amendments through the legislative process and, if it chooses to proceed, send the revised Bill for presidential consideration again.

The dispute therefore centres not on whether the state can legislate against anti-social activities, but on how far such legislation can operate alongside existing central laws and whether overlapping provisions can withstand the constitutional framework governing conflicts between state and central legislation.