Calcutta High Court rejects 'premature' plea against Bengal anti-goonda law

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday, 6 August declined to examine the constitutional validity of West Bengal's controversial 'anti-goonda' legislation, holding that the challenge was premature because the Bill had not come into force when the petition was filed.

The order comes weeks after chief minister Suvendu Adhikari strongly defended the legislation while announcing its implementation, warning that "any attempt to incite unrest in the state will not be tolerated" and that the police would strictly enforce the new law.

A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Parthasarathi Chatterjee dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL), observing that there was no legal basis for the court to test the constitutional validity of legislation that had not yet become operative. At the same time, the bench made it clear that the petitioners would be free to return to court after the legislation formally came into force.

The judges said the PILs challenging the proposed Bill were being dismissed "for the time being" because they had been filed before the legislation had become law. Since the Bill had not received the required assent and had not been notified at that stage, the court held that there was no occasion to examine its constitutional validity. However, the Bench clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from filing a fresh PIL once the law was brought into force.

The litigation arose after the West Bengal Assembly passed the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, commonly referred to as the Goonda Control Bill or Anti-Goonda Bill. The government said the legislation was intended to maintain public order and enable preventive action against organised crime and habitual offenders.

However, even before the Bill became law, a PIL was filed before Calcutta High Court questioning several of its provisions.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate and CPI(M) leader Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya argued that several provisions of the proposed legislation were arbitrary, excessively harsh and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. He contended that the Bill granted sweeping powers to the police, creating a serious risk of misuse by the authorities.

The state opposed the petition at the threshold. Advocate-general Surojit Nath Mitra, assisted by advocates Bilwadal Bhattacharya and Rajdeep Majumdar, argued that the challenge itself was not maintainable because the Bill had neither received the governor's assent nor been officially notified when the petition was filed. Since the legislation was not in force, they submitted that the constitutional challenge was premature.

The controversy intensified after governor R.N. Ravi gave his assent to the legislation following its passage in the Assembly on 29 June. The law was subsequently brought into force by the state government.

Announcing its implementation during an administrative meeting and public rally in Berhampore, Murshidabad on 13 July, Adhikari strongly defended the legislation. "Any attempt to incite unrest in the state will not be tolerated. From now on, the police will strictly enforce this new law. Similar laws are already in effect in other states. Action will be taken in accordance with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The previous government paid no heed to public safety; we, however, are prioritising good governance."

The legislation has, however, attracted sustained political and legal criticism. Opposition parties, civil rights groups and several members of the legal fraternity have argued that the law contains overly broad definitions and gives the administration extensive preventive detention powers that could be used arbitrarily.

Their principal concern centres on the law's power to detain a person without trial for up to one year if the authorities believe that the individual is likely to disturb public order or threaten public safety. Critics argue that such powers could be invoked against political opponents and protesters under the guise of maintaining law and order.

Under the legislation, the State government may issue detention orders against a person classified as a "goonda" based on a report submitted by a superintendent of police or another senior police officer. Such individuals may be preventively detained for up to one year and may also be prohibited from entering specified areas for the same period.

Former state Congress president Adhir Chowdhury sharply criticised the law, saying, "I have vehemently opposed the Goonda Suppression Bill. This is not a bill to suppress goondas; it is a repressive bill. We will move the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court against it."

Questioning the broad definition of a 'goonda', CPM leader and advocate Sabyasachi Chatterjee added, "If the State alone defines who constitutes a 'goonda,' it creates a dangerous situation. The power to arbitrarily label someone a 'goonda' and arrest them is terrifying. Without a precise definition of a 'goonda,' the law is liable to be misused."