West Bengal Passes Sweeping Public Safety Law: Preventive Detention Powers Spark Debate Over Civil Liberties and Executive Overreach
New Anti-Social Activities Law Allows One-Year Preventive Detention, Property Seizure and Externment; Government Calls It a Tool Against Organised Crime, Critics Warn of Due Process Concerns
The West Bengal Legislative Assembly has passed the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, introducing one of the state’s most stringent public order laws in recent years. The legislation significantly expands the government’s powers to combat organised crime, allowing preventive detention for up to one year, externment of alleged offenders from specified areas and seizure of property believed to be linked to anti-social activities.
The law empowers District Magistrates, Commissioners of Police and state-authorised senior police officers to order preventive detention if they believe a person is likely to engage in activities prejudicial to public safety or public order. Unlike ordinary criminal prosecution, detention under the law is preventive rather than punitive, meaning a person may be detained without a completed criminal trial if authorities consider it necessary to prevent future offences.
The legislation also broadens the definition of “anti-social activities” to include organised extortion, criminal intimidation, illegal mining, sand extraction, obstruction of business, economic offences and other activities that allegedly create fear or insecurity among the public. Authorities are additionally empowered to confiscate or attach properties suspected to have been acquired through such activities, even before a criminal conviction is secured.
A major feature of the law is the provision permitting preventive detention for up to twelve months. Every detention order must be reviewed within three weeks by an Advisory Board headed by a serving or former High Court judge, as required under constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention. However, the legislation has attracted attention because detainees may face limitations on legal representation before the review board, depending on the proceedings involved.
The state government has defended the legislation as a necessary response to organised crime, extortion syndicates, political violence and activities that threaten public order. During the Assembly debate, the government argued that existing criminal laws often prove inadequate against habitual offenders and organised criminal networks, making preventive powers essential for maintaining law and order.
However, the law has generated significant concern among constitutional experts, civil rights groups and opposition leaders. Critics argue that the definitions of “anti-social activity” are broad enough to permit subjective interpretation, creating the possibility of arbitrary detention or misuse against political opponents, activists or individuals who have not yet been convicted of any offence. They contend that preventive detention, by its nature, limits personal liberty before guilt is established through judicial proceedings.
Legal scholars have also questioned whether some provisions could face constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law, fundamental freedoms, protection of life and personal liberty, and procedural safeguards for preventive detention. While preventive detention is constitutionally permissible in India under certain circumstances, courts have repeatedly emphasised that such powers must be exercised with strict procedural safeguards and remain subject to judicial review.
The new law has inevitably drawn comparisons with preventive detention statutes already in force in several other jurisdictions, including the National Security Act (NSA), the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, and similar anti-social activities laws enacted in states such as Kerala and Puducherry. Supporters argue that West Bengal’s legislation follows an established constitutional framework, while critics maintain that expanding preventive detention powers without stronger procedural protections risks weakening due process and civil liberties.
With the Bill now passed by the Assembly, legal experts expect constitutional challenges before the courts. Future judicial review is likely to examine whether the law appropriately balances the state’s responsibility to maintain public order with the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly regarding preventive detention, property confiscation and safeguards against executive overreach.
