Defending the legislation, tourism minister Shankar Ghosh argued that tougher laws were essential to curb violence and vandalism. “The time has come to disabuse those who believe that destroying government property is not a crime,” he said, claiming that Bengal had witnessed “15 years of “looting, terror and banditry”.
He alleged that violence had taken place during protests over the Citizenship Amendment Act and waqf issues and said, “This Bill is crucial to punish those who attempt to exploit the poor.”
Shankar Ghosh also defended stronger police powers, declaring, “Through this Bill, the time has come to bring the police out from under the table (a reference to a 2014 incident in Kolkata when a policeman was photographed hiding from an armed mob under a table) and force the goons under it.”
Responding directly to Siddique’s concerns, he maintained that while peaceful protest remained a fundamental right, the destruction of public property would not be tolerated. He further argued that existing provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were inadequate and claimed that similar legislation had already been enacted in states including Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan.
Municipal affairs minister Agnimitra Paul added another angle to the Bill, saying it would allow victims to seek compensation not only for damage to public property but also for losses suffered by private individuals. “If someone’s shop is vandalised, their house set on fire, or their business ruined, they will be able to claim compensation,” she said.
Chief minister Suvendu Adhikari, while introducing the Bill, argued that the legislation had become necessary because of incidents of violence in the state. Referring to Hargobind Das, who was killed during violence in Murshidabad in April 2025, he said, “Hargobind Das’s wife is seated in the gallery; she herself is an example of why this Bill is necessary.”
However, despite repeated assurances from ministers that the law would target only “criminals and vandals”, much of the Assembly debate centred on fears that its broad provisions could enable preventive detention, arrests based on suspicion and expanded police discretion, becoming a powerful instrument that could be used not only against anti-social elements but also against political opponents and dissenting voices.
About the Author
