Essay on Law regarding Drug Addiction in India !
In view of the alarming increase in drug menace in India, the Parliament enacted the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 which was later amended and called the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotrophic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 and came into force on July 4, 1988.
The Act emphasises on the preventive aspect of drug evil and covers a wide list of substances that are recognised as narcotic drugs. It seeks to prevent people from the dangers of drug-abuse. It was for the first time in India, that legislation recognised a wide list of substances that were categorised as dangerous drugs.
Image Source: lisatorracolaw.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The main policy underlying the Act is to prohibit supply and distribution (trafficking) of prohibited drugs, for which minimum sentence of ten years, which may extend to 20 years, with a minimum fine of rupees one lakh, and a maximum upto two lakhs has been prescribed. The Act makes no distinction between a drug addict and a drug-trafficker in respect of punishment except under Sections 27 and 64-A of the Act.
Section 27 of the Act provides that if a drug addict proves that he possessed drug of less than ‘small quantity’ as notified by the Central Government and that it was for his own personal consumption and not for sale, he or she shall be liable to punishment which may extend to maximum one year.
Section 64-A provides immunity to a drug addict from criminal liability provided he proves that the offence is committed for the first time and he or she voluntarily agrees to be treated for de-addiction in a recognised institution.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 71 of the Act provides for rehabilitative and reformative measures for an addict whether he is an offender or not. The provision of this section seems to have been based on the principle that the purpose of reformative penology is to “destroy criminality in a human being without destroying humanity in a criminal”.
This is undoubtedly, more in tune with the Supreme Court’s view that “right to life includes right to live with dignity” as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the Act combines within it deterrance and reformative techniques of punishment to tackle the problem of drug addiction and trafficking effectively.
It is significant to note that heroin addiction in India was virtually non-existent before 1980 as per the enforcement agencies report. In 1989 there were an estimated 800,000 heroin addicts in India and their number has increased almost ten times in 1994.
In India also drug addiction is spreading like wild fire as could be seen from the fact that heroin was being recently smuggled even in dead bodies. Two Nigerian nationals were sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh by Greater Bombay Principal Judge Mr. S.A. Kirtikar on 25th Dec., 1987 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPSA) for smuggling huge quantity of heroin in dead bodies.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Supreme Court of India, in Dawood Lama’s case, confirmed the conviction of the accused, a foreign national under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100,000/- and in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
In this case brown sugar was seized from the accused which is a narcotic drug and not a psychotropic substance. The Court further ruled that under NDPS Act the police officer taking search is duty bound to inform the person arrested that if he so desired he shall be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
In Birendra Kumar Rai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court further held that in a case falling under the Prevention of Illegal Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1988, the accused should be sternly dealt with under Section 3 of the Act and provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are not attracted in such cases. Therefore, the detention of the accused under the Act shall not be held arbitrary.
In State of Maharashtra and others v. Nagpur Distillers, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court took a serious note of liquor addiction among the younger generation and urged the Government to work towards gradually reducing the consumption of liquor.
The Apex Court directed that the goal of prohibition of liquor as enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution casts a duty on the State atleast to reduce the consumption in the State gradually so that the objective of prohibition may be achieved during limited period of time.
The Court further observed that more and more of the younger generation in this country is getting addicted to liquor. It has not only become a fashion to consume liquor but it has become an obsession with very many youngsters. Surely we do not need “Indolent nation”.
The Court lamented as to why the States in face of Article 47 of the Constitution of India should encourage unrestricted trade in liquor. Indeed, it is something that it is difficult to appreciate. The only excuse for the State for not following the mandate of Article 47 is that this trade generates huge revenue income and such revenue is being used for meeting the financial needs of the State.
While disposing of special petition filed by the State of Maharashtra against an interim order of the Bombay High Court which had stayed the recovery of license fee due from the Nagpur Distilleries for the manufacturing and sale of Indian made foreign liquor under the Maharashtra Distillation of Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1996, the Supreme Court directed the Company to pay 50% of the fee by December 31st of every year till the High Court decides the matter finally.
The decision of the Apex Court calling upon the States to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to public health is a welcome step in implementing the Gandhian ideology of prohibition and the State Governments must initiate appropriate step to comply with this mandate.