Image credit: Suvendu Adhikari by Instagram

Introduction: Security, Public Order, and the Limits of State
Power

The West Bengal Legislative Assembly has passed two significant legislations that could fundamentally reshape the State’s approach towards public order, organised crime, and civil unrest. The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 empowers the State to place certain individuals under preventive detention for up to one year without trial. Alongside it, the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026 creates a framework for recovering compensation from those responsible for damaging public or private property during riots and violent protests. The enactments have revived a familiar constitutional debate: how far can the State restrict individual liberty in the name of public order?

Understanding Preventive Detention: Punishment Before
Conviction?

Preventive detention differs fundamentally from ordinary criminal law. Criminal law ordinarily punishes a person after an offence has been committed and proved before a court. Preventive detention, however, authorises the State to detain an individual because authorities apprehend that the person may commit acts prejudicial to public order in the future. The new legislation permits such detention for up to one year and requires every detention order to be examined by an advisory board within three weeks. Yet the law inevitably raises concerns because it allows restrictions upon liberty without a full-fledged criminal trial.

Expanding the Definition of Anti-Social Activities

The legislation adopts an expansive definition of anti-social activities. It covers organised extortion, unlawful dispossession of property, obstruction of business and trade, illegal mining and sand extraction, and activities that create fear, insecurity, danger to life and property, or substantial losses to public revenue. Supporters argue that modern threats to public order increasingly arisefrom organised economic offences and criminal networks. Critics, however, contend that broadly worded expressions may create space for subjective interpretation and potential misuse of preventive powers.

Liberty, Legal Representation, and the Advisory Board
Mechanism

Among the most debated provisions is the restriction on legal representation before the advisory board. The legislation states that persons under preventive detention shall not ordinarily be represented by legal practitioners, though exceptions may be permitted in appropriate cases for reasons recorded in writing. This provision has reopened larger questions about procedural fairness. While preventive detention proceedings are not conventional criminal trials, personal liberty remains at stake, and meaningful access to legal assistance is often considered an essential component of due process.

Compensation for Riots and Violent Protests

The second legislation introduces a compensatory framework for damage caused during riots, unlawful assemblies, and violent protests. Authorities are empowered to recover compensation and even confiscate and auction properties to satisfy claims. A statutory claims commission will determine the extent of losses and identify liable persons. Significantly, liability may extend beyond direct perpetrators to organisers, financiers, instigators, and logistical supporters of violence. The framework seeks to reinforce the principle that those who facilitate collective violence cannot escape responsibility merely because they did not physically participate in acts of destruction.

The Larger Constitutional Question: Security Versus Liberty

These legislations represent more than criminal law reforms; they touch the heart of constitutional governance. Every democratic society faces the challenge of preserving public order while protecting civil liberties. Excessive emphasis on security risks normalising extraordinary State
powers, while excessive emphasis on liberty may weaken responses to organised criminality and large-scale violence. The constitutional task therefore lies in balancing both values. The legitimacy of these laws will ultimately depend not merely upon their objectives but upon the fairness, restraint, and accountability with which they are implemented.

Conclusion

The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026 and the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026 mark one of the most significant shifts in the State’s public order framework in recent years. Their true test will not lie solely in how effectively they control organised crime and violent unrest, but in whether they can do so while remainingfaithful to the constitutional commitment to liberty, fairness, and due process.