Anti-Goonda Bill 2026 Explained: Why President Returned West Bengal Bill

President Droupadi Murmu has returned the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 to the West Bengal Legislature for reconsideration.

The key concern is the possible overlap between the Bill’s provisions relating to drug-related offences and preventive detention and the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988, a Central law.

The Bill was passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on June 29, 2026.

What is the Anti-Goonda Bill 2026?

The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 seeks to establish a legal framework to deal with persons involved in activities considered harmful to public order and public safety.

The Bill covers activities such as:

• Organised crime
• Extortion
• Illegal mining
• Activities causing public disorder
• Certain offences involving narcotic drugs
• Other anti-social activities

It also proposes measures including preventive detention for up to one year and restrictions on a person’s entry into specified localities or districts, subject to the conditions prescribed by the law.

Why Did President Murmu Return the Bill?

The major constitutional concern relates to the Bill’s treatment of NDPS-related offences.

A provision in the Bill proposes to include within the definition of a “goonda” a person who commits, attempts, abets, facilitates, organises or financially assists in an offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The concern is that this could create an additional preventive-detention mechanism for persons involved in illicit narcotics activities.

The Centre already has the PITNDPS Act, 1988, which provides for preventive detention of persons involved in the illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Thus, the issue is whether the State law could create a parallel mechanism operating in an area already covered by Central legislation.

Article 254 and Repugnancy

The issue brings Article 254 of the Constitution into focus.

Article 254 deals with situations where a law made by Parliament and a law made by a State Legislature are inconsistent with each other on a subject in the Concurrent List.

Article 254(1)

Where a State law is repugnant to a Parliamentary law on a Concurrent List subject, the Parliamentary law generally prevails and the State law becomes void to the extent of the repugnancy.

Article 254(2)

A State law on a Concurrent List subject can prevail within that State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and receives Presidential assent.

However, Parliament retains the power to subsequently enact legislation overriding such a State law.

Why is Preventive Detention Relevant?

Preventive detention is different from ordinary punitive detention.

Preventive detention is intended to prevent a person from engaging in activities considered prejudicial to specified interests. It does not require waiting for conviction in a criminal trial.

The Constitution deals with preventive detention under Article 22.

Importantly, Entry 3 of the Concurrent List (List III) covers:

Preventive detention for reasons connected with security of a State, maintenance of public order, or maintenance of essential supplies and services.

Therefore, both State legislative power and Central legislation can become relevant in this area, making the question of repugnancy constitutionally significant.

What Happens After the President Returns the Bill?

The procedure is governed by Article 201.

When the President returns a non-Money Bill reserved for consideration:

1. The State Legislature can reconsider the Bill.
2. It may pass the Bill again with or without amendments.
3. If passed again, the Bill is presented to the President for consideration.
4. The State Legislature has six months to reconsider the Bill after receiving the President’s message.

West Bengal can therefore reconsider the provision relating to NDPS offences and make amendments intended to address the concerns over overlap with the Central law.

Anti-Goonda Bill 2026 vs PITNDPS Act

Article 201 vs Article 254

These two Articles are particularly important for understanding the issue.

• Article 201 → What happens when a State Bill is reserved for the President and is returned for reconsideration.
• Article 254 → What happens when a State law conflicts with a Parliamentary law on a Concurrent List subject.

Thus, the present controversy involves both the legislative process under Article 201 and the repugnancy question under Article 254.

UPSC IAS Live GS P2I Foundation 2027 Fast Track Batch (Basic)

Sharing is caring!