Politics West Bengal

'Anti-Goonda' Bill returned by President over central law overlap

The President has returned West Bengal's proposed 'anti-Goonda' Bill for reconsideration after the Centre flagged a conflict with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Including NDPS offences in the definition of 'goonda' could create a parallel preventive-detention mechanism alongside the PITNDPS Act, 1988 and raise repugnancy under Article 254, the Centre said. A senior official said the Bill can be re-tabled in the Assembly after changes. On August 6, the Calcutta High Court dismissed three PILs against the Bill as premature.

Written by AI from Indian Express — Cities · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 25 Sept 2026, 1:32 am IST

Source

Indian Express — Cities · read the original report ↗

#anti-goonda bill#west bengal#presidents assent#ndps act#calcutta high court

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

The President returned West Bengal's 'anti-Goonda' Bill for reconsideration after the Centre flagged a conflict with the NDPS Act, 1985. — Attributed in source to the Centre's note; text of the note is quoted at length.
The Centre said the Bill's reference to NDPS offences may create a parallel preventive-detention mechanism and raise repugnancy under Article 254, and should be deleted from Section 2(d)(iii)(B). — Direct quotation from the Central government's note as reproduced in the source.
A senior state official said the Bill can be amended, re-tabled in the Assembly and sent again for the President's assent. — Attributed to an unnamed senior state administration official; not independently sourced.
On August 6, a Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee dismissed three PILs against the Bill as premature. — Specific date, bench and quoted observation appear in the source.
Suvendu Adhikari had claimed the Bill already had the Governor's assent and was being invoked over July 24 Esplanade violence, which the state's submission contradicts. — Source states this as its own finding based on the state's submission to the court; no direct quote of the earlier claims is provided.

Written by AI from Indian Express — Cities · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The objection looks technical on paper, but politically it is an awkward setback for the BJP government in West Bengal. The Chief Minister's repeated public claims that the 'Goonda Daman' law was already in force and had been invoked now sit against his own government's submission to the High Court that the Bill still awaits Presidential assent. That an objection came even with the same party in office at the Centre and in the state hands the Opposition a ready-made line of attack.

The Centre's stated ground is legal caution, not political resistance — that including NDPS offences could create a parallel preventive-detention mechanism alongside the PITNDPS Act and invite repugnancy under Article 254, a fix that could actually strengthen the law's survival in court.
The optics still cut against the government: the Opposition can argue the BJP's flagship 'tough law' promise remains unimplemented months after being introduced.
The gap between claiming action under an existing Act and telling the court the Bill is not yet law is the sharpest political vulnerability here, and a likely credibility talking point.
The High Court dismissing three PILs as premature is only temporary relief, since the bench expressly left the door open to challenges once assent is granted.
Despite the Chief Minister's assurance of no misuse, powers of preventive arrest and externment from a district for up to a year are likely to remain the Opposition's central campaign theme.

What to watch — Watch how quickly a revised Bill returns to the Assembly, whether the NDPS reference is deleted as suggested, and whether fresh challenges are filed the moment assent comes through.

The story does not establish any political motive behind the President's objection, nor what the amendments will look like, how long the process will take, or whether assent will ultimately follow.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 4 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

West Bengal's BJP government, led by Suvendu Adhikari, introduced the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 in June to curb "anti-social activities" and act against those it defines as "goondas". The Bill, which allows preventive action including externment from a district for up to a year, required the President's assent because it touches Centre-State legislative overlap. The President has now returned it for reconsideration after the Union government objected that including offences under the NDPS Act, 1985 in the definition of "goonda" would duplicate the Centre's PITNDPS Act, 1988 preventive-detention framework and raise repugnancy under Article 254. Separately, the Calcutta High Court on August 6 dismissed three PILs against the Bill as premature since it was not yet law.

Key facts

The President of India returned West Bengal's 'anti-Goonda' Bill for reconsideration after the Centre flagged a conflict with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The Centre objected to Section 2(d)(iii)(B) of the Bill, which brings within the definition of 'goonda' anyone who commits, attempts, abets, promotes, finances or facilitates an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, 1985.
The Centre said the clause may overlap with the preventive-detention framework of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, creating a parallel mechanism and an issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution.
The Centre recommended that the reference to NDPS Act, 1985 offences in Section 2(d)(iii)(B) be deleted to avoid duplication.
The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 was introduced in June by the BJP government.
The Bill empowers a District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, or a police officer not below the rank of DIG authorised by the state to order a 'goonda' out of a specified area or district and bar re-entry for up to one year, and to require reporting of movements.
On August 6, a Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee dismissed three PILs challenging the Bill as premature, since it had not received Presidential assent.
The state told the High Court that the Bill still awaits the President's assent, contradicting Adhikari's repeated public claims that the 'Goonda Daman Act' was already law and had been invoked over the July 24 protest march violence at Esplanade.

Timeline

JuneWest Bengal BJP government introduces the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026; Adhikari assures the Opposition it will not be used for political vendetta.
July 24Protest march at Esplanade sees violence; Adhikari later tells the Assembly the 'Goonda Daman Act' was invoked against those accused of orchestrating it.
August 6Calcutta High Court division bench dismisses three PILs against the Bill as premature, noting it awaits Presidential assent; petitioners given liberty to challenge it after assent.
Subsequently (date not stated in the source)The President returns the Bill for reconsideration citing the Centre's note on NDPS/PITNDPS overlap and Article 254 repugnancy.

Who has a stake

President of India — Holds the power to assent to or return a State Bill reserved for consideration; has returned this Bill for reconsideration.
Union Government — Flagged overlap with NDPS Act, 1985 and PITNDPS Act, 1988 and asked for deletion of the NDPS reference to protect the central statutory framework.
West Bengal BJP government / CM Suvendu Adhikari — Wants to implement the law 'as soon as possible'; faces a setback and the contradiction between his claims of the law being in force and the state's court submissions.
West Bengal Assembly — Can re-table the Bill after making changes where it conflicts with central law, before it is sent again for Presidential assent.
Opposition parties and PIL petitioners/activists — Object to preventive-arrest and externment provisions as oppressive; may challenge validity once the Bill becomes law.
Calcutta High Court — Has held challenges premature pre-assent while preserving petitioners' right to challenge the law after promulgation.

Why it matters

The case shows how the Constitution's federal design polices State laws that stray into fields already occupied by central statutes, with Article 254 repugnancy and Presidential assent acting as checks. It also raises civil-liberties questions, since the Bill allows preventive action, externment for up to a year and movement-reporting on the subjective apprehension of an officer. Finally, the state's admission in court that the Bill is not yet law undercuts public claims that it had already been invoked, going to the credibility of executive statements.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Article 254 of the Constitution deals with repugnancy between State and Union laws on Concurrent List subjects.
PITNDPS Act, 1988 is the central law on preventive detention of persons engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
NDPS Act, 1985 is the central law punishing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances offences.
The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 was introduced in June; objection was to Section 2(d)(iii)(B).
The Bill permits externment from an area/district and bar on re-entry for a period not exceeding one year, ordered by a DM, Commissioner of Police or an authorised officer not below DIG rank.
Calcutta High Court (Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee) dismissed three PILs on August 6 as premature for want of Presidential assent.

Mains framing

The return of West Bengal's 'anti-Goonda' Bill illustrates two tensions in Indian constitutionalism: federal division of legislative competence and the limits of preventive policing. Because the Bill's definition of 'goonda' swept in NDPS Act, 1985 offences, the Centre argued it would create a parallel preventive-detention regime alongside the PITNDPS Act, 1988, a specific central statute, attracting repugnancy under Article 254; the remedy suggested was surgical, namely deleting the NDPS reference in Section 2(d)(iii)(B). The episode underlines the practical importance of reserving such Bills for Presidential assent as a filter before a State law occupies ground already covered by Parliament. On the rights side, powers vested in a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner or DIG-rank officer to extern a person for up to a year and mandate reporting of movements on mere apprehension of future anti-social activity invite scrutiny for proportionality and safeguards, which is why the Opposition sought assurances against political misuse and activists approached the High Court. The way forward indicated in the source is institutional: re-table the amended Bill in the Assembly, remove the overlap with central law, seek assent afresh, and leave validity open to judicial challenge once the law is promulgated, as the Calcutta High Court expressly permitted.

Key terms

NDPS Act, 1985: The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the central law penalising drug-related offences.
PITNDPS Act, 1988: Central legislation providing for preventive detention of persons engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Article 254: Constitutional provision governing repugnancy where a State law conflicts with a Union law on the same subject.
'Goonda' (as defined in the Bill): A person covered by the Bill's definition of those engaged in anti-social activity, which the Centre objected to extending to NDPS offenders.
Externment order: Direction to remove oneself from and not return to a specified area, district or districts for up to one year, with reporting obligations.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Petition filed in public interest; three such petitions against the Bill were dismissed as premature on August 6.

Practice questions

Discuss how Article 254 operates when a State law overlaps with a central statute, using the return of West Bengal's 'anti-Goonda' Bill as an illustration.
Preventive detention and externment powers vested in executive officers require strong safeguards. Examine with reference to the provisions of the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026.
Why did the Calcutta High Court hold the challenges to the Bill premature, and what does this indicate about the timing of judicial review of legislation?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyRipley's to close San Francisco museum by end of 2026 →

← All stories