Drug Courts in India: A Missed Opportunity for Rehabilitation

Abstract

Drug addiction in India is still seen largely as a criminal issue rather than a public health crisis. While many countries like the United States and Canada have adopted drug courts that emphasize special forums that treat addicts through counselling, therapy and rehabilitation instead of prison, India continues to rely on the strict punishments of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 4 SCC 1 highlighted the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and reiterated the need for procedural fairness. Yet, the judgement stopped short of advocating rehabilitative justice. Similarly, in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 the Supreme Court stressed the rights of the accused but did not address systematic reform.

These cases reflect India’s missed opportunity to integrate rehabilitation within its legal system. The absence of drug courts means that addicts are often stigmatized and jailed rather than treated, perpetuating cycles of crime and substance abuse.

This article argues that India’s criminal-centric approach neglects the rehabilitative model that drug courts could offer, thereby failing to align with modern restorative justice principles.

Introduction

Drug abuse in India is both alarming and multifaceted. According to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s 2019 National Survey, more than 5.7 crore Indians are affected by harmful drug use, yet most remain outside the ambit of rehabilitation programs.

The legal response has been dominated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), a statute that prescribes stringent punishments for possession, consumption and trafficking. While the NDPS Act was enacted with the twin objective of curbing trafficking and protecting public health, its actual implementation has been largely punitive, with little scope for therapeutic or rehabilitative measures.

The central fact is that Indian prisons today house thousands of drug users who are addicts rather than traffickers. Instead of treatment, they face long pre-trial detentions and overcrowded prisons, aggravating their vulnerability.

This has led to an important legal issue:

“Whether India’s criminal justice system, in focusing solely on deterrence, has failed to uphold the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 (right to life with dignity) by not providing addicts an opportunity for rehabilitation.”

Judicial decisions reflect this tension:

• In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), the Supreme Court emphasized strict compliance with NDPS procedures, highlighting the rigidity of the law.
• In contrast, Raju v. State of Kerala (1999) marked a progressive shift, with the Court acknowledging that addicts should be treated as patients needing care, not just as offenders.

Despite this acknowledgment, systematic reforms such as the establishment of drug courts—specialized tribunals that combine legal supervision with de-addiction treatment—have not been introduced in India.

The judicial approach so far has been case-specific, balancing strict statutory provisions with occasional humanitarian observations, but without structural innovation. Unlike the United States or Australia, where drug courts have successfully reduced recidivism and integrated offenders back into society, India has missed the opportunity to institutionalize such a mechanism.

Thus, the judgement so far is clear: India’s reliance on punishment over rehabilitation has perpetuated a cycle of incarceration rather than recovery. The need of the hour is to explore drug courts as a viable alternative that can harmonize deterrence with therapeutic jurisprudence.

Legal Framework for Drug Courts in India: A Missed Opportunity for Rehabilitation

India’s legal response to drug use and addiction is rooted in a criminal justice paradigm, with the focus primarily on punishment and deterrence rather than rehabilitation and treatment. While there are legal provisions that attempt to incorporate aspects of rehabilitation, the overall framework lacks the institutional structure and legislative clarity necessary for implementing specialized mechanisms such as drug courts.

This section explores the core statutes, policies and judicial interpretations that shape India’s approach to drug-related offences, and highlights the missed opportunity to integrate a rehabilitative legal framework through drug courts.

1. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)

The NDPS Act is the principal legislation governing drug control in India. It criminalizes a wide range of activities including cultivation, manufacture, possession, sale, transport, and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

a) Punitive Orientation of the Act

The NDPS Act is largely punitive in nature, with severe minimum sentences for even minor infractions. For example:

• Section 21 prescribes punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 27 criminalizes drug consumption itself, prescribing up to one year of imprisonment for personal use of certain substances.

This approach ignores the medical and psychological dimensions of addiction, punishing users into the prison system rather than treatment programs.

b) Section 64A – Limited Scope of Rehabilitation

One of the few rehabilitative provisions under the Act is Section 64A, which provides immunity from prosecution to drug-dependent persons who voluntarily seek medical treatment from a government-recognized facility.

However, this section suffers from multiple practical and legal limitations:

• It is rarely invoked, partly due to lack of awareness among law enforcement officials and judicial officers.
• The provision is discretionary, not mandatory, and subject to the judge’s approval.
• There is no monitoring mechanism or structured follow-up once a person is admitted for treatment, making relapse common.

Additionally, the harsh bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act further deter treatment-seeking behavior. Courts often interpret this section rigidly, especially in small quantity cases, undermining the principle of proportionality.

2. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 is a progressive legislation that recognizes substance use disorders as a form of mental illness and affirms the right to access mental health care, including for those suffering from drug addiction.

However, this Act:

• Is not integrated with the criminal justice system.
• Lacks procedural mechanisms to divert drug users from the courts or jails into mental health facilities.
• Does not provide any legal basis for specialized courts like drug courts that could function at the intersection of law and mental health services.

Thus, while it acknowledges the health aspect of drug use, the Act does not provide a judicial route for rehabilitation.

3. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

This Act allows for the release of first-time offenders on probation instead of sending them to prison. Courts have the discretion to release offenders after due admonition or on the basis of good conduct, especially in cases involving minor offences.

Although applicable in theory to drug users charged under less serious provisions of the NDPS Act, its application has been minimal due to:

• The stringent bail and sentencing structure of the NDPS Act.
• A lack of judicial awareness and rehabilitation infrastructure.
• The stigma surrounding drug use, which often leads to incarceration rather than treatment.

Furthermore, the NDPS Act overrides general provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, reducing its applicability in narcotics cases unless specifically directed by the court.

4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

This Act recognizes drug and substance abuse as a child protection issue, mandating care, treatment and rehabilitation of children in conflict with law or in need of care.

Under Section 77 & Section 78, the Act penalizes the supply of narcotics to children and emphasizes their rehabilitation. Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) are empowered to ensure medical care and counselling for children with substance use issues.

However, the provisions apply only to minors and there is no corresponding system for adults who may be equally vulnerable to substance abuse but fall outside the juvenile justice framework.

5. Judicial Interpretation and Sentencing Trends

The Indian judiciary has, at times, acknowledged the need for a more compassionate and reform-oriented approach.

• In E. Michael Raj v. Narcotic Control Bureau (2008), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for determining punishment based on the actual content of narcotic substance rather than gross weight, reflecting a move towards proportionality in sentencing.

However, courts continue to face institutional and legislative constraints in diverting drug users to treatment programs. Unlike in jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia or Canada, Indian judges do not have the statutory backing to:

• Mandate treatment in lieu of incarceration.
• Monitor compliance through regular drug court sittings.
• Work with an interdisciplinary team (e.g., counselors, probation officers, social workers).

6. Absence of Legal Framework for Drug Courts

Drug courts are specialized judicial bodies designed to handle cases involving drug-dependent offenders through a rehabilitative, non-adversarial approach. They combine judicial supervision with access to treatment services, structured rehabilitation and regular monitoring of progress.

Such courts have been successful in:

• Reducing recidivism.
• Lowering incarceration costs.
• Promoting long-term recovery.

However, India lacks any statutory or policy framework for drug courts. Neither the NDPS Act nor any other Indian law provides for:

• Diversion programs for drug-dependent offenders.
• Specialized training for judicial officers on addiction and recovery.
• Procedural guidelines for court-supervised treatment.
• Interagency collaboration between health and legal sectors.

This legal vacuum represents a missed opportunity to integrate public health principles into criminal justice, especially at a time when India faces a growing drug addiction crisis.

The 2022 report by AIIMS and the Ministry of Social Justice estimates that over 2.3 crore Indians are current users of opioids with only a fraction receiving treatment.

The Proof (Data, Arguments, Authority)

1. Arguments

• India primarily treats drug-related offences under a criminal-penal approach (NDPS Act, 1985) rather than a rehabilitative one.
• Drug courts, functioning successfully in the USA, Canada, and Australia, emphasize treatment, counselling, and reintegration instead of imprisonment.
• Absence of such courts in India leads to overcrowded prisons, repeat offenders, and denial of medical care to addicts, who are patients rather than criminals.

2. Data

• NCRB (2022): 74,620 NDPS cases registered, with conviction rates near 75%.
• Prison statistics (NCRB, 2021): Over 20% of under trials are booked under NDPS offences.
• National Survey (2019): 3.1 crore Indians use cannabis and 2.3 crore use opioids, but only ~1200 treatment centers exist.
• Global Evidence: U.S. drug courts reduce recidivism by up to 45%. Every $1 invested saves $3-$4 in avoided incarceration and crime costs.

3. Authority (Judicial Recognition/Case Law)

• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) – SC held confessions to NDPS officers inadmissible, stressing fairness.
• Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2016) – SC stressed rehabilitation of victims of substance abuse.
• State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) – SC emphasized safeguarding accused rights under NDPS.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979-80) – Landmark ruling on speedy trials and humane treatment, relevant to NDPS undertrials.

Conclusion

The Indian legal system, through the NDPS Act, has sought to adopt a deterrence-based approach to combat drug abuse and trafficking. While this strict framework has been useful in addressing the menace of illicit trade, it has simultaneously blurred the line between addicts as victims and traffickers as criminals.

The consequence is that thousands of individuals suffering from substance dependence remain trapped in cycles of imprisonment, stigma and recidivism, with little access to rehabilitation. Judicial pronouncements such as Raju v. State of Kerala (1999) have highlighted the need to view addiction as a disease requiring treatment, yet this recognition has not been translated into systemic reform.

The absence of drug courts in India reflects a missed opportunity to integrate principles of therapeutic jurisprudence into the criminal justice system. Comparative experiences from jurisdictions like the United States, Canada and Australia demonstrate that drug courts can strike a balance between accountability and compassion by mandating treatment alongside judicial oversight.

For India, adopting such a model would not only alleviate prison overcrowding and reduce recidivism but also ensure meaningful enforcement of Article 21, safeguarding the right to life with dignity.

Therefore, the path forward lies in reconceptualizing drug policy: traffickers must face deterrent penalties but addicts should be diverted towards treatment and reintegration. Establishing specialized drug courts can bridge the gap between law and social justice, ensuring that India does not merely punish drug users but genuinely rehabilitates them.

In the long run, such a reform is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative.

FAQs

Q1. What is a drug court?
A court that focuses on rehabilitation of drug addicts instead of only punishments.

Q2. Are there drug courts in India?
No, India does not have formal drug courts; cases are handled under the NDPS Act.

Q3. Which case treated addicts as patients?
Raju v. State of Kerala (1999).

Q4. Why is the NDPS Act criticized?
It is too punitive and leaves little scope for rehabilitation.

Q5. How can drug courts help India?
They can reduce recidivism, decongest prisons and promote rehabilitation.

Q6. Which constitutional right is linked with rehabilitation?
Article 21 – Right to life with dignity.

References

Primary Sources

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.
3. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999, 6 SCC 172.
4. Raju v. State of Kerala, 1999, 3 SCC 427.
5. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Magnitude of Substance Use in India. New Delhi: 2019.
6. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988.

Articles and Journals

a. Sharma, R. (2020). Drug abuse and the Criminal Justice System: Need for Therapeutic Jurisprudence in India. Journal of India Law and Society, 11 (1), 89-112.
b. Choudhury, S. (2021). Punishment v. Rehabilitation: A Critique of NDPS Act in India. Indian Law Review, 12(3), 245-267.
c. Deshpande, A. (2018). Rehabilitation over incarceration: Comparative Insights from Drug Courts. International Journal of Law & Policy Review, 7(2), 34-49.
d. Gupta, M. (2022). The Missing Link in India’s Drug Policy: Why Rehabilitation matters. NUJS Law Review, 15(2), 77-95.
e. Menon, P. (2019). NDPS Act & Indian Judiciary: A critical analysis. Indian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Law, 7(1), 54-70.

Websites

• National Association of Drug Court Professionals – About Drug Courts
• PRS Legislative Research – The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985: An Overview
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – Drug Prevention & Treatment

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India