Calcutta High Court Declines Urgent Hearing In PIL Challenging WB 'Goonda Law', Flagging Potential Misuse By State

The Calcutta High Court has declined urgent hearing in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2026, commonly referred to as the "anti-goonda" law. The petitioner has sought an interim stay on the operation of the legislation, contending that its provisions are arbitrary, oppressive, and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The PIL was mentioned on Monday before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Parthasarathy Chatterjee by Advocate Sabyasachi Chatterjee.

"By virtue of this law the government is given the liberty to decide who is a goonda, kindly let it be lsited on any early date. This needs to be stayed or it can be misused by the state."

The Bench, however, declined the request for urgent listing and observed that the matter would be taken up in the ordinary course. 

"File it, it will come up in usual course. We are not stopping you," the Acting Chief Justice observed.

The challenge comes on the very day the Act came into force. The legislation, passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on June 29, confers extensive preventive detention powers upon the State to curb organised crime and anti-social activities. Among its key provisions is the power to detain a person for up to one year without trial if the authorities are satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent the person from engaging in future anti-social activities.

The Act also authorises the government to detain persons who are "generally reputed to be desperate and dangerous to the community", a provision that has attracted criticism from civil liberties groups over the breadth of the language employed.

The PIL contends that the legislation grants sweeping powers of preventive detention and imposes unreasonable restrictions on personal liberty. It also questions provisions governing proceedings before the Advisory Board constituted under the Act.

Under the statute, every preventive detention order is required to be placed before an Advisory Board within three weeks. The Board is to be headed by a serving or former High Court judge and is tasked with examining whether sufficient cause exists for continued detention. However, Section 10(4) of the Act provides that a detained person shall ordinarily not be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, though the Board may relax this prohibition in appropriate cases by recording reasons in writing.