West Bengal passes bills allowing 1-year detention without trial, compensation for riot damages
The West Bengal Assembly on Monday passed two controversial law and order Bills, granting the state government expanded powers to detain individuals without trial for up to one year and to recover damages for public and private property destroyed during riots.
The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, and the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026, were passed by voice vote, despite opposition from some lawmakers. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari assured the House that the laws would not be misused for political vendetta.
The first Bill allows preventive detention of suspected gang members for up to 12 months without a trial if a district magistrate, police commissioner, or a DIG-level officer believes the person is or will engage in anti-social activities. The definition of 'anti-social activity' is broad, covering acts likely to cause alarm, danger, or insecurity, as well as illegal mining and land grabbing.
The Bill also empowers authorities to bar individuals from entering specified areas for up to a year and to seize properties linked to criminal activities. A 'goonda' is defined as a person who habitually commits, attempts, or facilitates anti-social activities, or has been charge-sheeted under specific sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The second Bill establishes a Claims Commission to assess damages and award compensation for property destroyed during riots, unlawful assemblies, or violent protests. The commission's awards will be final and cannot be appealed in regular courts. Owners of private property damaged in the same incident may also seek compensation.
The Bills were introduced in the presence of family members of two victims of Murshidabad violence last year, who were killed during protests over the Waqf Act. Adhikari said their presence underscored the need for the legislation.
Opposition members expressed concerns about potential misuse of the preventive detention provisions, but the government maintained that safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary action.
