Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging WB 'Goonda' Law As Premature After State Says Bill Yet To Be Notified As Act

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed as premature a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Goonda Control Bill, after the State submitted that the legislation has not yet been notified and has therefore not come into force.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the challenge could not be entertained at this stage since the Bill is yet to become law.

The PIL was being argued by Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who questioned the constitutional validity of the proposed legislation, contending that several of its provisions were arbitrary, excessive and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Bhattacharya argued that the proposed legislation conferred sweeping powers upon the executive and was susceptible to misuse. He submitted that the Bill, if brought into force in its present form, would have serious implications for civil liberties and personal freedom.

Opposing the plea, Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, along with AAGs Billwadal Bhattacharya and Rajdeep Majumder, appearing for the State, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. They submitted that the West Bengal Goonda Control Bill has not yet been notified or received the assent of the Governor and therefore has not become an enforceable law.

Accepting the State's objection, the Division Bench dismissed the PIL as premature, observing that the legislation is yet to be notified and consequently no cause of action has arisen for examining its constitutional validity. It, however, granted the petitioners liberty to move the court at a later date after the law was notified, if necessary.

Background

The West Bengal Goonda Bill was passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly earlier this year with the stated objective of providing for preventive detention of persons allegedly involved in organised criminal activities and habitual offences in order to maintain public order.

The proposed legislation has, however, attracted criticism from opposition parties, civil rights groups and sections of the legal fraternity, who have expressed concerns that its broad definitions and extensive preventive detention powers could lead to arbitrary action and misuse against political opponents and dissenters.

The PIL before the High Court sought to have the proposed law declared unconstitutional even before it came into force, contending that its provisions infringed Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, however, declined to examine the challenge at this stage, leaving it open for any future challenge after the legislation is notified and becomes operative.

Case No: WPA (P) 380/2026