INTRODUCTION
After leading the UN’s opposition to the intolerance for the sociocultural use of organic medicines, India had to sign the Single Convention on Narcotic medicines in 1961, Following which the Indian government passed the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) in order to regulate and control psychotropic substances and narcotics. Its main goals are to stop drug misuse and stop the manufacture, distribution, and use of drugs. The Act stipulates severe punishments for drug-related acts, including as trafficking, possession, and use.
KEY PROVISION OF THE ACT
Section 8 expressly forbids the production, manufacturing, distribution, including the storage, transportation, acquisition, and sale of illegal drugs and psychotropic substances, as well as the cultivation of opium, poppies, coca, or cannabis plants. Additionally, it bans their financing, consumption, and harboring of criminals found guilty under the Act.
As per Section 19 of the act, a farmer who grows opium under a license but embezzles will have to face a harsh 10- 20 years prison sentence and a fine of Rs.1 to Rs. 2 lakhs.
According to Section 23, anyone involved in the illegal import, export, or transshipment of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances will have to face a sentence of 1 – 20 years in prison and a fine of between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2 lakhs, subject to the amount of the prohibited substance.
section 31A of the act talks about the death penalty for certain offences after previous conviction.
KEY LEGAL CHALLANGES OF THE ACT
There are stringent requirements for granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is said that the court must be convinced that there are adequate grounds to believe the defendant is innocent and unlikely to commit a crime while on release, and that the public prosecutor must be given time to object to the bail application. Compared to other major offenses, such conditions make it considerably harder for defendants to get bail.
For some offences, the NDPS Act stipulates harsh punishments, such as the death penalty and long imprisonment. One could argue that these punishments violate Article 21’s proportionality principle since they are not in proportion to the offense.
The Act’s limitations on the use of narcotics and psychotropic substances have been frequently cited as a violation of the right to personal freedom (Article 19).
According to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985, the court must be certain that the accused is not guilty of any criminal acts bearing a death or jail penalty before it can grant bail. Even from the start of the trial, the defendant is burdened with this. This is thought to undermine the presumption of innocence, affect those charged with bail in particular, and maybe result to a stay of pretrial custody which is against the general principle of the law.
The NDPS act places the burden-of-proof entirely on the accused to establish innocence.
UPHOLDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH CASE LAWS
In Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014), the Supreme Court examined whether these strict bail requirements under Section 37 were constitutional. The Court upheld the clause but stated that the restrictions must not be abused to arbitrarily deny bail.
In the State of Kerala v. Rajesh [AIR 2020 SC 721] case, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the bail-granting authority would be constrained by both Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Section 439 of the CrPC (now Section 483 of the BNSS). According to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, no one may be granted more bail under the Act unless the prosecution has been given the opportunity to contest the application and the court has been convinced that the accused has good reason to believe they are innocent.
In the 2012 case of Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of Assam, the Indian Supreme Court examined whether the death punishment for repeat offenders under Section 31A of the NDPS Act was fair. Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution are violated, the court said, by the necessity to pay a fine for this offense. The court said that in order for the punishment to be fair, balanced, and equal to the offense, it must be considered and, if it is possible, self-evaluated.
In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that confessions under Section 67 of NDPS are not admissible in criminal cases because they are made to non-police officers, who are therefore protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which forbids self-incrimination. According to Section 53 of the NDPS Act, these individuals are “police officers,” as defined by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. As a result, the Evidence Act would prohibit any confessions given to these officials.
It was stated in the State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) case that evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search would not be allowed to be used in court. The rationale is that the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution—the right to equality—as well as Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—are violated when Section 50 is violated.
CONCLUSION
The NDPS Act is constitutionally valid. The NDPS Act is valid under the constitution. The Supreme Court of India has continually upheld its provisions, highlighting the state’s legitimate interest in reducing drug abuse and safeguarding public health, which supports the limitations placed on individual rights. The Act is in line with the constitutional objectives of promoting public health and safety and has been determined to be a sensible and appropriate response to the escalating issue of drug misuse and trafficking. The Court has upheld the belief that, despite certain constraints on freedoms enjoyed by individuals, such regulations are required to safeguard society’s welfare.
