ASSIGNMENT

LAW WITH RESPECT TO DE-ADDICTION AND SCOPE FOR IMPROVEMENT: ANALYSIS

De-addiction as a word is derived from ‘addiction’. Addiction is “the chronic, relapsing brain
disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful
consequences.”1 The addition of the words (de-) to any word gives that word a negative
connotation. Hence, de-addiction means any action taken to obviate the compulsive habit of
taking drugs. The de-addiction has long been a concern for the world at large. Despite the
consensus over the ill-effects of drug abuse; nothing much has been done. There exist legal
frameworks such as Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, 1971 etc. although with little success. The United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime (“UNODC”) is the leading body across the globe against illicit drugs and international
crime.2 Despite having these conventions and a body, the use of illicit drugs is still rampant.
The economy of countries like Afghanistan, in fact is largely dependent upon the cultivation
of these drugs which is further supplied to other nations through international borders.3

The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“Act”) is the primary
legislation on drug abuse in India. It’s impact can be understood from the fact that the highest
number of prisoners are lodged in jails under this Act among all the special and local laws.
The following graphical representation contains the data on both the undertrials and total
convicts under various special and local laws applicable in India.4

1
Sharad M. Porte et al., Drug Addiction and Ayurvedic Method of De-Addiction, Journal of Research and
Education in Indian Medicine, 2015; 21(0):0-0.
2
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), [Link]
The%20United%20Nations%20Office%20on%20Drugs%20and%20Crime%20(UNODC)%20is,Nations
%20lead%20programme%20on%20terrorism.
3
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan Opium Survey 2023 Cultivation and Production after
the ban: effects and implications, [Link]
opium_survey_2023.pdf.
4
National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Prison Statistics India 2022,
[Link]
/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/psiyearwise2022/[Link].
 Prison Statistics under Special and Local
Laws
80,000
70,000
72,217
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000 14,470 15,967
0 8352 5048
1863 4,779
NDPS Act Arms Act 718
SC/ST Act Others

Undertrials Total Convicts

On a careful consideration of the aforementioned data, it is clear that the number of persons
who are booked under the NDPS Act far exceeds the number of convictions. Further, this
high disparity is only visible in the case of NDPS Act and not in other Acts. Moreover, the
legislation is so loosely drafted that it is often misused. Section 50 of the Act provides for the
conditions to be followed at the time of arrest. It states that if the suspect requires, he can
demand to be searched in front of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. 5 Further, a discretion is
also given to the police officer to bypass the procedure provided in a special act and follow
the procedure of a general legislation i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Now, the routine
procedure followed by the police is to get a letter handwritten by the suspect stating that he/
she waives the right to be searched in front of the gazetted officer. No wonder, there is a huge
pile of cases of NDPS where the undertrial prisoners are behind the wall. Hence, a provision
which was created to ensure all kind of fairness is compromised due to it being loosely
drafted.

Even if it is the case where the witnesses consciously are waving their rights, the problem
persists. The reason being that accused in these cases belong to the lower strata of the society
with lack of proper education.6 Mere giving a right to such people would not make a
difference unless they are equally explained the need and the use of such right. This can be
best understood from the example of ‘Right to Information’. Though it may sound very
general in nature with little or no utility for an individual. Still, there lies a greater power
5
Section 50, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
6
Supra note 4.
which is conferred on an individual through this right. This right prevents the government
and its subordinate department to function as per their whims and fancies. It also ensures that
the government remains accountable to the people for whom it is working. Hence, mere
conferring the right is not sufficient unless its proper use is also explained which is lacking in
the case of section 50. It is important to mention here that even the courts have failed to
properly interpret this provision. In the Arif Khan case,7 the supreme court has given the
provision a rather restricted interpretation. The court categorically stated that the search of the
person before the magistrate/ gazetted officer is mandatorily required irrespective of the
wishes of the accused. This contradicts the language which merely states ‘if such person so
requires…’ It means now the police have to mandatorily present the accused before the
magistrate even if the accused waives his right. This opposes the settled rules of interpretation
where courts cannot give meaning to the law when the words used in the statute are plain and
clear.

Further, there is a need to show some compassion to the accused involved in this Act. The
drug users majorly comprise of the adults some of whom are suffering from depression.
Further, there are people from whom consumption of drugs has become a daily habit which
they cannot leave. Moreover, as per various studies there is a direct relation between poverty
and association to drugs.8 The widening disparity, lower job opportunities have given rise to
more and more people shifting to the business of drugs. It is argued that there is a need to
treat these people as a victim just the way it was done in the case of attempt to suicide where
the accused was dealt under Mental Health Act, 2017 and not under the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

The paper delves into deep regarding the intricacies of drug abuse. The world at large is
affected by it including India. Though there is a law in the form of NDPS Act; the same has
proved to be insufficient. There are two pronged arguments supporting this contention.
Firstly, this legislation is loosely drafted with vague interpretation done even by the judiciary
on the powers to police under section 50. Secondly, it treats the subjects as the hard-core
offenders with no scope of reform. This situation is precarious considering target at the
receiving end comprises of the young generation which holds the baton of development of
this nation.

7
State of Uttarakhand v. Arif Khan, (2018) 18 SCC 380.
8
April Shaw et al., Drugs and Poverty: A Literature Review, Scottish Drugs Forum,
[Link] ie/11489/1/Drugs_and_Poverty_Literature_Review.pdf.