The return of West Bengal’s anti-goonda bill by President Droupadi Murmu has exposed a structural problem in the state’s proposed public-safety framework: the attempt to create a broader state mechanism may duplicate a central preventive-detention law already dealing with drug-related offences. The issue is not merely whether the bill can be amended, but how far state legislation can extend when its provisions operate in an area already covered by Parliament.
The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, was passed by the state Assembly in June and sent to the President for assent. According to an official note cited in the report, the bill was returned for reconsideration because of a provision connected with offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The bill substantially expands the categories of activity that the state seeks to address through its proposed anti-goonda framework. These include organised crime, extortion, illegal mining, cybercrime and public disorder. Its return means the legislation has not yet completed the assent process and must now be examined by the state government before any further action is taken.
The immediate dispute centres on Section 2(d)(iii)(B). The provision includes within the definition of a “goonda” a person involved in committing, attempting, abetting, promoting, financing or facilitating an offence punishable under the NDPS Act. The central government’s note, issued before the bill was returned, questioned whether this provision would overlap with the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, commonly referred to as the PITNDPS Act.
The PITNDPS Act is a central law that provides for preventive detention of people involved in the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The objection recorded in the note is therefore specific: if the Bengal bill also enables preventive action against people connected with drug-related activity, two detention frameworks could operate over substantially similar conduct.
That concern brings the legislation into the constitutional field of repugnancy. Article 254 of the Constitution deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and state legislatures on matters in the Concurrent List. Where provisions made by the two levels of government cover the same subject but operate differently, the question is whether both can function together, whether one must give way, or whether the state measure requires presidential consideration and a legally sustainable distinction.
The note’s recommended solution is narrowly framed. It proposes removing the reference to offences under the NDPS Act from Section 2(d)(iii)(B), thereby avoiding a direct duplication between the proposed state law and the central preventive-detention framework. The recommendation does not, on the evidence available in the report, reject the bill’s other provisions dealing with organised crime, extortion, illegal mining, cybercrime or public disorder.
This distinction is important for understanding what the President’s action does and does not mean. The bill has not been declared invalid, nor has the entire proposed public-safety framework been closed. Instead, one provision has triggered a reconsideration process because its application could extend into a field already governed by central legislation. The next institutional decision lies with the West Bengal government, which must examine the note and determine whether to amend the provision or pursue another course available under the legislative process.
A senior state government bureaucrat said the government could not comment in detail until it had examined the note. The bureaucrat also said the bill could be tabled again in the Assembly after amendment and expressed the hope that it could then be sent to the President again. That statement indicates a possible legislative route, but it does not establish that an amendment has been finalised or that the bill will necessarily return to the Assembly in its present form.
The episode illustrates the administrative difficulty of drafting broad public-safety legislation. A state may seek to respond to several forms of disorder through a single law, but each additional category can create intersections with existing criminal, regulatory or preventive-detention statutes. The wider the definition of the targeted conduct, the greater the need to specify how the new law will coexist with laws already enacted by Parliament.
The Bengal bill’s proposed scope makes that drafting question particularly relevant. Organised crime, extortion, illegal mining, cybercrime and public disorder involve different forms of conduct, different investigative agencies and different legal frameworks. A provision that groups these activities under a common “goonda” definition may simplify the state’s legislative approach, but it can also raise questions about the relationship between ordinary criminal prosecution, preventive detention and specialised central legislation.
The NDPS-related objection shows how that overlap can become constitutionally significant. The issue is not simply whether the same person could be investigated under two laws. The central note specifically refers to the possibility of two parallel preventive-detention mechanisms operating in relation to drug-related activities. That creates a question of institutional design: which law governs the detention, which authority exercises the power, and how safeguards, procedures and review mechanisms interact when the same conduct fits both statutes.
The available report does not provide details of the bill’s full detention procedure, the duration of detention proposed under the state law, or the precise safeguards attached to the disputed provision. It also does not establish whether the state government has accepted the recommendation to remove the NDPS reference. Those details will be material if the bill is amended and placed before the Assembly again.
For the moment, the confirmed development is that the President has returned the bill for reconsideration over the NDPS-related provision and that the central note has identified a possible conflict with the PITNDPS Act under the constitutional doctrine of repugnancy. The state government’s examination of the note, any decision to amend Section 2(d)(iii)(B), and a possible re-tabling of the bill in the Assembly are the next milestones to watch.
