Drug offences
“Drug offences” are offences that prohibit or regulate the cultivation, possession, production, consumption, unauthorised sale, distribution, import and export of controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Official definition of Drug Offences
Definition under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985[1]
The official definition of the term “drug offences” can be inferred from Chapter III - “Prohibition, Control and Regulation” and Chapter IV - “Offences and Penalties” of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"). Chapter III prohibits various actions, and Chapter IV penalises such actions being taken in the context of specific drugs.
Discourse under International Conventions
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 [2]
Article 36 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 provides for penal provisions. It states that “Party shall adopt such measures as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty.” It also restricts conspiracy and attempt in terms of these drug offences. Moreover, various provisions of the Convention talk about the regulation and licensing of the production of various substances.
Article 21 of the Convention provides for Limitation on Production of Opium. It restricts each country from manufacturing or importing more narcotic drugs than the quantities required for medical and scientific needs, exports, approved stocks, and other special purposes under the Convention.
Article 22 provides that, wherever possible, the parties must put in place a prohibition on the cultivation of opium, coca bush or cannabis plant unless they are being used for scientific research.
Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 [3]
Article 22 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 requires Parties to establish penalties for all intentional violations of laws or regulations enacted to fulfil the obligations under the Convention. It also covers participation in, attempts at, and conspiracy to commit such offences.
Article 5 limits the use of specified substances strictly to medical and scientific purposes.
Articles 7 and 8 require Parties to regulate the manufacture, distribution, possession, and trade of psychotropic substances through systems of licensing, government authorization, and control.
Article 21 obliges Parties to take measures to suppress illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances and to coordinate enforcement efforts.
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 [4]
Article 3 of the Convention provides for Offences and Sanctions Requires States to criminalize the production, manufacture, cultivation, sale, transport, import, export, possession for trafficking, conspiracy, attempt, participation, money laundering, and financing of illicit drug activities. This is the core substantive provision dealing with drug offences.
Article 5 of the Convention provides for Confiscation Requires States to identify, freeze, seize, and confiscate proceeds derived from drug trafficking and property used in committing drug offences.
Article 7 of the Convention provides for Mutual Legal Assistance Requires States to assist one another in investigations, prosecutions, searches, seizures, obtaining evidence, and tracing proceeds of drug crime.
Article 24 of the Convention provides for More Stringent Measures than those Required by the Convention Permits States to adopt stricter domestic anti-drug laws than those mandated by the Convention.
SAARC Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [5]
Article 3 of the SAARC Convention provides for Offences that requires Member States to criminalize the manufacture, cultivation, possession, purchase, sale, transport, import, export, financing, conspiracy, and participation in illicit drug trafficking activities.
Article 5 of the SAARC Convention is Extradition that provides that serious drug offences shall be treated as extraditable offences between SAARC Member States.
Article 10 of the SAARC Convention is Measures against Drug Abuse requires Member States to adopt preventive, educational, treatment, rehabilitation, and social reintegration measures for drug abuse.
Article 11 of the SAARC Convention is Eradication of Illicit Cultivation and Demand Reduction requires States to suppress illicit cultivation of narcotic plants and reduce demand for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Provisions relating to Drug Offences in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Under the NDPS Act, Chapter III is titled "Prohibition, Control and Regulation" and states that no person shall cultivate, gather, produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship of specified drugs. Moreover, it also restricts external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, disallowing drugs to be bought and thereafter sold outside the country. The chapter also prohibits the conversion or transfer of property derived from drug offences to conceal the property’s origin and aid any person in evading legal consequences. Along similar lines, it restricts any person from knowingly concealing the true nature, source, location, and disposition of any such property or acquiring, possessing or using such property.
Chapter IV is titled "Offences and Penalties" and gives punishments for the abovementioned prohibited acts being performed with regard to various specified drugs, such as poppy, coca plant, coca leaves, prepared opium, cannabis, psychotropic substances, and manufactured drugs. The punishment prescribed varies based on the quantity of drugs involved. If convicted for an offence involving a small quantity, a person may be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of up to 1 year or a fine of up to Rs 10,000, or both. In case of commercial quantity, a person may be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of up to 20 years but no less than 10 years or with a fine of more than 1 lakh rupees and less than 2 lakhs rupees (however, after recording the reason, the court may fine exceeding 2 lakh rupees). For a quantity that is less than the commercial quantity but is more than a small quantity, the person may be punished with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years or with a fine of up to 1 lakh rupees. The Chapter also penalises embezzlement by licensed cultivators, external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, for allowing premises to be used for the commission of an offence, for the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.
Key Definitions under the NDPS Act, 1985
Commercial Quantity (acc. to S.2 (viia)) means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Narcotic Drug (acc. To S.2 (xiv)) means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs.
Psychotropic substance (acc. To S.2 (xxiii)) means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule.
Controlled substance (acc. to S. 2 (viid)) means any substance which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its possible use in the production or manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or to the provisions of any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a controlled substance
Illicit traffic (acc. to S. 2(viiib)) means cultivation, gathering, engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic or psychotropic substances. Moreover, it also includes property related crimes, financing, abetting, or harbouring persons who engage in the abovementioned activities.
Production (acc. to S. 2 (xxii)) means separation of opium, poppy straw, coca leaves or cannabis from the plants from which they are obtained.
Manufacture (acc. to S. 2 (x)) involves refining, transformation, making of a preparation using these drugs and substances and all processes other than production by which these drugs and substances may be obtained.
To transport (acc. to S. 2(xxviii)) means to take from one place to another within the same State or Union territory.
Use (acc. to S. 2(xxviiia)), in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any kind of use except personal consumption.
Rehabilitation of Addicts under the NDPS Act, 1985
An “addict” (as per S. 2(i)) is defined as a person who has dependence on any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
Section 4 (2) (d) of the act empowers the Central government to take measures for identification, treatment, education, after care, rehabilitation and social reintegration of addicts.
As per section 39, if any addict is found guilty of an offence under section 27, and the court deems it suitable, instead of sentencing them to any imprisonment the court may release and direct them to undergo medical treatment for de-toxification or de-addiction. The addict must appear before the court within a year with a report regarding the result of their medical treatment, based on which the court may release the offender.
Section 64A provides immunity from prosecution to addicts charged with an offence under section 27, given that they volunteer to undergo medical treatment of de-addiction. This immunity is subject to the addict undergoing complete treatment.
Section 71 empowers the government to establish centres for addicts. These centres would be tasked with identification, treatment, management, education, after-care, social re-integration of addicts and to supply drugs as required to registered addicts.
Bail Jurisprudence on Drug Offences under NDPS Act, 1985
Bail under the NDPS Act departs fundamentally from general criminal procedure. Whereas the ordinary principle under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, which replaced the CrPC) is that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception".
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides two conditions for bail often called the "twin test", which is: -
Firstly, the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
Secondly, when opposed, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Landmark Cases
Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429[6]
An accused facing prosecution under NDPS Act for the offences mentioned in section 37 should be released on bail only when the conditions of section 37 of the NDPS act are strictly satisfied.
Joy Mitra v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3016[7]
Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused where the only material was that the accused's details appeared on certain seized parcels. It was noted that such details might have been misused and that no nexus had been established between the accused and the recovery. The court thus stressed that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not to be applied mechanically but only after careful scrutiny of the material on record. When there is no material to link the accused with the recovery of the commercial quantity of contrabands, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not get attracted. Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates formidable barriers in the form of twin test to bail but it applies only when there is clear prima facie evidence linking the accused with the offence.
Dadu @ Tulsidas vs State Of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437[8]
A sentence awarded under the Act can be suspended by the appellate court only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the Act as dealt with in this judgment.
Investigation and Procedure
Section 2(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code[9] defines what is meant by 'investigation' as every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the state governs.
Provisions under NDPS Act, 1985
The investigation of offences under the NDPS Act is governed by Chapter V of the Act is titled "Procedure" and prescribes the procedure for search, seizure, arrest, investigation, custody of seized substances, and related safeguards in the enforcement of drug laws.
Section 41 empowers Magistrates and specially authorized officers to issue warrants for search and arrest.
Section 42 is Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization which authorizes specified officers to enter, search, seize, and arrest without warrant in buildings, conveyances, or enclosed places upon receiving prior information; information must be reduced to writing and communicated to superior officers.
Section 43 authorizes seizure and arrest without warrant in public places, including public transport, streets, railway stations, and airports.
Section 50 mandates that a person subjected to personal search must be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
Section 51 makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to searches and seizures under the NDPS Act, unless inconsistent with the Act.
Section 52 A provides the procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs, preparation of inventory, photographs, and sampling before a Magistrate.
Section 55 requires safe custody of seized narcotic drugs and articles by the officer-in-charge of a police station.
Section 57 requires officers making arrest or seizure to report the particulars to their superior officer within 48 hours.
Guidelines for Investigating Officer to be used in Drafting FIR and during Investigation of the case
- by the Bureau of Police Research & Development Ministry of Home Affairs
The Investigating Officer (IO) must maintain thorough and proper written documentation, known as the ruqqa, throughout the investigation of offences under the NDPS Act. The constitution of the raiding party should be carefully recorded, including the exact time of departure from the police station, whether a vehicle was used, details of any arms and ammunition carried, the route taken, the name of the driver, and the presence and location of any informer. Details of independent public witnesses who were requested to join the raid must be noted, including their place and background, as well as reasons for any who refused or did not join, with records of any show cause notices issued. The IO must also document the briefing given before the operation, positioning of parties, and precise times for key actions such as daily diary entries, arrival at the spot, nakabandi, and apprehension of the suspect. The time and direction of the suspect’s arrival, items carried by the suspect, and details of any companions should be recorded, alongside vehicle numbers, make, and colour.
When contraband is voluntarily produced by the accused, a notice under Section 50 is not required. However, the IO must enter a detailed description of the contraband, including packing and markings, in the ruqqa and in the seizure memo. The contraband should be tested at the spot using a field kit, and two representative samples must be collected. Forms for CFSL, FSL, and CRCL testing must be completed immediately. The case property should be sealed with a standard seal and handed to an independent witness, with the Station House Officer (SHO) counter-sealing the property. In case a house search is conducted at night, the reasons for doing so must be recorded and the information sent to senior officers within seventy-two hours.
The IO must prepare the accused’s dossier and obtain the first remand promptly. Filing of the challan is mandatory within sixty days for possession of less than commercial quantity and within ninety days for commercial quantities. Samples collected must be sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis without delay. A detailed site plan must be prepared to illustrate the recovery scene, and any previous involvement of the accused in similar offences should be recorded in the challan. Parcels of seized material must be weighed on the spot, with weights signed by witnesses, and all seal details must be carefully recorded. Additional operational details such as distance from the police station to the recovery site, presence of nearby shops, and source of light if recovery occurs after sunset should also be documented to strengthen the investigation file.
Procedures to be followed in NDPS Cases
- published by the Bureau of Police Research & Development Ministry of Home Affairs
This document delineates the procedure that prosecuting agencies are mandated to follow under the BNSS and the NDPS Act, commencing with the entry of information in the General Diary or the preparation of an Information Note, and culminating in the submission of the charge sheet or the institution of the final complaint.
Landmark Cases
Jothi @ Nagajothi v. State, 2025 INSC 1417 [10]
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the absence of independent witnesses does not by itself weaken the prosecution case under the NDPS Act where the testimony of official witnesses is consistent, credible, and inspires confidence. The Court further held that non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A relating to sampling and inventory of seized contraband is not automatically fatal to the prosecution unless it creates doubt regarding the identity, integrity, or chain of custody of the seized substance. Minor procedural irregularities that do not affect the core of the prosecution case cannot result in acquittal. The Court also observed that slight variations in the weight of samples due to natural drying or loss of moisture are insignificant and do not undermine the evidentiary value of the seized material. Emphasizing the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody, the Court held that where sealing, identification, and forensic examination of samples are properly established, the conviction can be sustained. Finally, the Court reiterated that offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act attract mandatory minimum sentences, and courts lack discretion to reduce such sentences on humanitarian or equitable considerations.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 595 [11]
The court held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act implicitly make it imperative and obligatory and cast a duty on the Investigating Officer (empowered officer) to ensure that search of the concerned person (suspect) is conducted in the manner prescribed by Section 50, by intimating to the concerned person about the existence of his right, that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, would cause prejudice to an accused and render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The omission may not vitiate the trial as such.
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online SC 974 [12]
The Supreme Court considered whether an investigation under the NDPS Act could be regarded as fair when the same police officer acted both as the informant/complainant and the investigating officer. The Court held that a fair investigation is an essential component of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. It observed that allowing the complainant himself to investigate the offence creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermines the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. Consequently, the Court held that where the informant and the investigating officer are the same person, the trial stands vitiated and the accused would be entitled to acquittal.
The Supreme Court observed that, 'An investigation is a systemic collection of data with the goal of demonstrating what occurred and justifying why it occurred'. The term 'systemic' implies that it is a more complex procedure. As a result, investigation refers to a thorough search or inspection to ascertain facts.
Official Documents
The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2016 [13]
This private member bill, numbered 241 of 2016, was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Dr. Dharam Vira Gandhi, seeking to legalise certain traditional intoxicants such as opium and marijuana. While bringing this amendment, he reasoned “the 30 years’ period of enactment and implementation of NDPS Act has produced results contrary to the desired results” and pointed out that NCRB data shows that 88% of those jailed under NDPS are drug users, and the traffickers and distributors form only a small minority.
The amendment aimed at replacing terms like narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, coca plant, opium poppy and cannabis plant with “hard drugs”, so as to decriminalize “soft drugs”. The amendment, under section 4, defined “hard drug” to mean possessing, cultivating, using, displaying, purchasing or transporting. It defined “soft drug” as a drug the use of which does not lead to significant physical or psychological dependence or degradation of a person.
Section 8 was proposed to be amended to apply only to hard drugs. Section 9 was proposed to be amended to allow the Central government to regulate, through permits and licensing, hard and soft drugs differently. Section 6 of the amendment aimed to introduce a mechanism for authorised and monitored sale of soft drugs in a regulated market setting.
Section 14 of the amendment proposed to insert sub-section 2 under section 20 of the act. This sub-section would have legalized possessing, cultivating, using, displaying, purchasing, transporting and consumption of soft drugs.
Implementation Framework of the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) [14]
The National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) (2018–2023) had been prepared in accordance with the spirit of the UN Conventions, the NDPS Act, 1985, and the NDPS Policy, 2012. It aimed at the reduction of adverse consequences of drug abuse through a multi-pronged strategy involving education, de-addiction and rehabilitation of affected individuals and their families.
The objectives of the NAPDDR were to create awareness and educate people about the ill-effects of drug abuse on the individual, family, workplace, and society at large, and to reduce stigmatisation and discrimination against individuals dependent on drugs in order to integrate them back into society. It sought to develop human resources and build capacity for working towards these objectives, and to facilitate research, training, documentation, innovation and collection of relevant information to strengthen these efforts. The plan also provides for a whole range of community-based services for identification, motivation, counselling, de-addiction, after-care and rehabilitation for Whole Person Recovery (WPR) of addicts. It calls for the formulation and implementation of comprehensive guidelines, schemes, and programmes using a multi-agency approach for drug demand reduction and to undertake efforts to address all forms of drug abuse while alleviating the consequences of drug dependence amongst individuals, families and society at large.
The Implementation Framework specifies components admissible for financial assistance under the scheme. These include:
- Preventive Education and Awareness Generation, through programmes in schools, colleges, workplaces, slums and high-risk areas, sensitising communities and vulnerable groups like children of addicts, street children, prisoners and truck drivers. Audio-visual tools, street plays, puppet shows, seminars, and group discussions may be used for outreach.
- Capacity Building, by training teachers, counsellors, social workers, functionaries of IRCAs, police personnel, paramilitary forces, judicial officers, and prison staff on prevention, treatment, after-care, and rehabilitation.
- Treatment and Rehabilitation, including running and maintenance of Integrated Rehabilitation Centres for Addicts (IRCAs), establishing and assisting de-addiction centres in government hospitals, medical colleges, prisons, and juvenile homes, and setting up model residential stabilisation programmes.
- Setting Quality Standards, by developing treatment modules for different categories and age groups, updating minimum standards of services, and introducing third-party accreditation of de-addiction centres for quality assurance.
- Focused Interventions in Vulnerable Areas, through community-based peer-led interventions (CPI) for early drug use prevention among adolescents and Outreach and Drop-in Centres (ODICs) offering safe spaces, screening, counselling, referral and linkage to treatment and rehabilitation.
- Skill Development, Vocational Training and Livelihood Support, for ex-drug addicts in collaboration with national corporations, skill development institutes, and state governments to promote meaningful economic rehabilitation.
- Surveys, Studies, Evaluation, Research and Innovation, to gather evidence, monitor trends, and develop contextually relevant interventions.
- Programmes for Drug Demand Reduction by States/UTs and Programme Management through national committees, steering committees, and project management structures to oversee and coordinate implementation in mission mode.
Drugs, Crime and Punishment - Proportionality of Sentencing for Drug Offences[15]
- International Drug Policy Consortium
This document sets out proportionality as a fundamental principle in sentencing for drug offences, drawing on its basis in both international human rights law and national legal systems. Proportionality requires that any limitations on individual rights, such as punishment, should be no more than necessary to achieve legitimate objectives, mainly the protection of public health and welfare. Sentencing systems should differentiate between the types of drugs, the scale of illegal activity, and the roles and motivations of offenders, including distinctions between users, dealers, traffickers, and those acting out of economic necessity or dependence. The document criticises common practices of imposing excessively severe penalties, arguing that these often fail to meet proportionality standards because they do not effectively advance just outcomes or reflect the actual harm caused, especially in cases involving minor or low-level offenders.
Several international examples demonstrate how some legal systems have started to adjust their sentencing approaches in line with proportionality. For example, the United Kingdom revised its sentencing guidelines to make clearer distinctions between leading figures in organised crime and minor participants such as drug mules. These guidelines sought to address previous situations where vulnerable couriers received sentences equal to serious traffickers, advising reduced penalties in recognition of their lower culpability. Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled penalties for personal possession unconstitutional, although laws still often do not clearly differentiate between minor drug dealing and organised crime, resulting in disproportionate effects on vulnerable populations. Portugal’s approach is cited as a positive example, with a shift towards lower or suspended sentences for drug mules following research that demonstrated their limited culpability and the ineffectiveness of harsh punishment as a deterrent.
With regard to drug mules in particular, the document highlights that involvement is frequently motivated by social and economic vulnerability, with little control over the trafficking operation. It recommends that sentencing frameworks take such factors into account as mitigating circumstances, acknowledging that drug mules play a lesser role and make minimal profit compared to organisers. The document concludes by urging governments to decriminalise personal possession, provide comprehensive support for drug users, and distinguish clearly between roles and motivations within trafficking cases to avoid overly harsh and counterproductive sentences.
State Legislations
Sikkim
The Sikkim Anti-Drug Act, 2006 was introduced to deal with the state’s unique problems with prescription drugs with similar provisions as the NDPS Act, 1985. The stated purpose of the act is to regulate and prevent abuse of drugs and controlled substances.
As discussed in this report by Vidhi, the evolution of the act shows a move towards destigmatisation of drug addiction and abuse. Moreover, a shift from penalising addicts to a more rehabilitation centric approach. The act as amended in 2017 and 2018, began with differentiating between peddlers and consumers, adopting a rehabilitative approach and decriminalization of drug use.
“Addict”, as per section 2(b), is a person who has dependence in any drug having the abuse potential and consumes such drug. This definition does not apply to drugs prescribed for medical reasons.
“Illicit traffic”, as per section 2(h), means production, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import or export inter-State of controlled substances.
“Peddler”, as per section 2(k), means any person who manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses controlled substances of quantity more than “small quantity” without valid prescription or license.
The act, under section 3, empowers the government to take relevant measures to prevent abuse of controlled substances and illicit traffic, such as coordination between departments and rehabilitation of addicts. Section 5 provides for a State Fund, and its management, to further the motives of this act of combating illicit traffic, controlling drug abuse, rehabilitation, education and training. Section 8 grants the government the power to permit, control and regulate possession, sale, use, consumption, manufacturing and transport of controlled substances through authorisations and licensing.
The act penalises and designates various acts as offences related to controlled substances and drugs, implicitly terming such acts as “drug offences”. Section 7 prohibits sale, stock for sale or trade and transportation by any person without a license. Section 9 provides for punishments if acts restricted in section 7 are done. It provides different punishments based on the quantity of controlled substances. If the substance is in ‘small quantity’, the person shall be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 to 5 years and with a fine of Rs 20,000 to 50,000. Similarly, in offences involving ‘large quantity’ a person shall be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 to 10 years and a fine of Rs 50,000 to 1,00,000. For offences involving ‘commercial quantity’ a person shall be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 to 14 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 to 10,00,000. Transportation and conveyance shall lead to rigorous imprisonment for 10 to 14 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 to 10,00,000. Moreover, manufacturing without a license would lead to a rigorous imprisonment for 10 to 14 years and a fine of Rs 5,00,000 to 10,00,000. The section also provides, regarding addicts, for a mandatory psychological evaluation and rehabilitation. Section 10 punishes allowing premises to be used for commission of an offence with a rigorous imprisonment of 5 to 10 years and a fine of Rs 2,00,000 to 5,00,000. Section 12 states that abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit an offence shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
The act under section 16 leads to a presumption of culpable mental state required for an offence under the act. “Culpable mental state” under the act includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe a fact. The burden of proof hence, rests on the accused to prove against this presumption.
Tamil Nadu
Section 2(a) defines “Acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” in context of a “drug offender” is when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a drug offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Section 2(e) defines “drug-offender” to mean a person who manufactures, sticks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Dangerous Drug Act, 1930 and the rules, notifications and order made under either Act, or in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above mentioned things by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.
Section 3 grants “power to make orders detaining certain persons”, such preventive detention is done to maintain public order by order of the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police. Such order must be reported to the State Government with stated reasons for the same, and no order shall be in force for more than 12 days, unless approved by the State government.
Section 8 provides that the detainee has to be informed of the grounds for the detention order within 5 days of detention.
Sections 9 to 12 talk about the advisory board’s constitution and functioning. The advisory board has the duty to review the detention order with representations from all concerned persons and decide whether to allow or disallow the further detention.
Section 13 prescribes the maximum period of detention to be 12 months.
Maharashtra
Section 2(a)(iii) defines “Acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” in context of a “drug offender” is when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a drug offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Section 2(e) defines " drug offender" as person who manufactures, stocks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, or the rules and orders made under either Act or in of contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly 1040. expends or applies any money in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above mentioned things by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.
Karnataka
Section 2(a)(ii) defines “Acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” in context of a “drug offender” is when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a drug offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Section 2(e) defines " drug offender" as person who manufactures, stocks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, or the rules and orders made under either Act or in of contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly 1040. expends or applies any money in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above mentioned things by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.
Kerala
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA)
Section 2(i) defines ''drug-offender'' means a person who illegally cultivates, manufactures, stocks, transports, sells or distributes any drug in contravention of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985) or in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly does anything abetting or facilitating any such activity.
Section 2(o) defines "known goonda" as a person who, within the seven years preceding the order of restriction or detention, has either been convicted at least once by a competent court for an offence falling within the statutory definition of a goonda, or has been found in two separate instances, through an investigation, enquiry, or complaint initiated by persons other than police officers, to have committed acts constituting goonda activities. The provision further includes offences involving the seizure of alcohol, spirit, counterfeit currency, sand, forest produce, infringing copyrighted articles, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or hawala-related currency, even where the proceedings were initiated on the basis of police action
Gujarat
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
Section 2(f) defines ''drug-offender'' as a person who -
(i) imports any drug in contravention of section 10 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter in this definition referred to as "the Drugs Act"), XXIII of 1940.
(ii) manufactures for sale, or sells, or stocks or exhibits for sale, or distributes any drug in contravention of section 18 of the Drugs Act,
(iii) manufactures for sale any Ayurvedic (including Siddha) or Unani drug in contravention of section 33D of the Drugs Act,
(iv) sells, or stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any Ayurvedic (including Siddha) or Unani drug other than that manufactured by a manufacturer licensed under Chapter IV-A, in contravention of section 33E of the Drugs Act,
(v) cultivates any coca plant, opium poppy, or cannabis plant or produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, ware-houses, imports inter-State, exports inter-State, imports into India, exports from India or tranships any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in contravention of section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Punjab
Punjab launched its Outpatient Opioid Assisted Treatment (OOAT) programme in 2017, dispensing the substitute medication Buprenorphine-Naloxone (BNX) to heroin, opium, and poppy-husk dependents through a network that had grown to 35 government de-addiction centres and roughly 181- 208 OOAT clinics (including clinics inside jails) by the early 2020s, treating over a lakh patients.
The programme suffered well-documented irregularities including missing stock, diversion of medicine to the black market, and fraudulent patient registrations prompting the state cabinet to approve the Punjab Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Counselling and Rehabilitation Centres Rules, 2025, which cap the number of centres a single private operator may run at five and mandate biometric attendance for every registered patient.
International and Comparitive Law
Nepal
Nepal had enacted Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act, 2033 (1976) and defines Narcotic Drug under Section 3(a) as Cannabis, medicinal cannabis, opium (including processed and medicinal), Plants and leaves of coca (including mixtures of coca and other substances) and any synthetic narcotic or psychotropic substances.
The legislation under Section 3(a)(7) states ‘synthetic narcotic substances or psychotropic substances’, here the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are equated to one another unlike Indian legislation where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are considered to be two different categories.
The Nepali legislation Section 3(i) also defines “Production” as the extraction of Cannabis/Marijuana, Hemp, Siddha, or Hashish (Chares) from the Cannabis/ Marijuana plant or the separation of leaves from coca plants, a narrower formulation than the Indian definition, which extends to separation of opium, poppy straw, coca leaves, or cannabis more broadly.
Portugal
In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the use and possession of drugs for personal consumption, shifting its approach from criminal punishment to public health intervention. While the possession, use, and acquisition of drugs remain unlawful, individuals found with small quantities intended for personal use are generally referred to Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, comprising legal, health, and social work professionals, rather than being prosecuted criminally. The Portuguese model emphasizes treatment, harm reduction, rehabilitation, and social reintegration. Studies have associated the policy with reductions in problematic drug use, particularly heroin dependence, and a decline in HIV infections among people who inject drugs, making Portugal one of the most frequently cited examples of a health-centred approach to drug policy.[16]
New York City, United States
New York City, in 2021 became the first city in the United States to establish officially sanctioned supervised drug-consumption sites. These facilities allow individuals to consume previously obtained drugs under the supervision of trained medical and support staff, thereby reducing the risk of overdose and facilitating access to healthcare and treatment services. According to a report commissioned by the city administration, the establishment of four such sites was projected to prevent approximately 130 overdose deaths annually and generate healthcare savings of up to $7 million each year. The initiative was also expected to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C, demonstrating the potential benefits of a regulated, public health-oriented approach to drug policy.[17]
Reports and Researches on Drug Offences
Drug Abuse Among Street Children in Delhi
The report examines the drug crisis affecting nearly seventy thousand street children, the highest such population among sixteen Indian cities. The report reveals that substance use is not an isolated occurrence but forms part of the daily reality of survival for these children. A 2015 study found that thirty-six per cent of school-dropouts in Delhi used intoxicating substances. Initiation often begins with tobacco at an average age of 12.3 years, followed by inhalants and cannabis, with some starting as young as five. Many children use drugs as a coping mechanism, particularly those working as rag pickers who inhale substances to endure the unpleasantness of their work. While boys are more commonly affected, social workers note that drug abuse among girls remains a significant but hidden concern.
The report highlights the failures of existing support systems. Bureaucratic barriers prevent children from accessing treatment at the National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC) because there is no explicit referral order and most children lack guardians, a requirement for admission. Even when treated through NGOs such as SPYM, reintegration remains challenging, as children without families are placed in homes where schooling is often discouraged due to fears they will run away.
Funding and coordination issues worsen the situation. The report notes unspent funds at the NDDTC despite the lack of essential support staff and points to a reduction in national budget allocations for child protection. It concludes by urging that drug addiction be treated as a public health concern, calling for clear ministerial responsibilities, adequate infrastructure, and community-based treatment approaches.
A Case for De-Criminalization of Cannabis Use in India
This report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy traces how India moved from cultural acceptance of cannabis to its prohibition under the NDPS Act, 1985. Once a plant woven into religious rituals and traditional medicine, cannabis became a criminal offence almost overnight as a result of international treaty obligations. The report illustrates the impact of this shift by pointing out that in Mumbai, 87 per cent of cases before magistrate courts for drug consumption involved cannabis, demonstrating how enforcement disproportionately targets its users.
Economic costs are made clear through figures. In 2018, Delhi and Mumbai together consumed over 70 metric tonnes of cannabis, yet none of this was taxed or contributed to public revenue. The authors argue that regulating and taxing cannabis, as is done for alcohol, could generate hundreds of crores each year while reducing the burden on police and courts.
The report also highlights the human impact. Most arrested users are daily wage earners and street dwellers who face fines or short imprisonment, which worsens their economic situation. It calls attention to global reforms, such as Portugal’s administrative model and Canada’s legalisation, and recommends that India explore a public health approach, citing the Sikkim Anti-Drugs Act as a model.
From Addict to Convict - the working of the NDPS act in Punjab
The report evaluates whether the NDPS act has met its twin objectives of deterrence and rehabilitation in Punjab. It uses law as a lens to study Punjab's pressing drug issue, analysing 13,350 cases from 2013-2015 to question if harsh punishments lower crime rates and if addicts are effectively rehabilitated.
A central finding is that deterrent punishment has not resulted in lowering drug crimes; in fact, the crime rate has increased. The report reveals that between 70-90% of drug cases involve 'intermediate quantities', a negatively defined category that leads to ambiguous and disparate sentences. Most of these cases appear to involve addicts rather than traffickers, yet they are channelled into the criminal justice system without recourse to de-addiction treatment
The study also uncovers disproportionately heavy sentences for pharmaceutical drug cases, with average sentences exceeding 10 years. This is attributed to an executive notification that bases punishment on the entire weight of the substance recovered, not just the pure drug content, causing many to be convicted for carrying 'commercial quantities'. Worryingly, police narratives in chargesheets are found to be uniform and repetitive across districts, suggesting superficial investigations focused only on proving possession.
On rehabilitation, the report finds government-run de-addiction facilities inadequate and notes that no individuals have been directed to these centres by the Special Courts. It concludes that addiction is treated as a criminal offence instead of a public health concern. The report strongly recommends decriminalising drug consumption and adopting a public health approach. It suggests diverting addicts to treatment, regardless of the quantity found, and training police and the judiciary on non-punitive provisions. It also calls for quashing the 2009 notification to avoid unfair convictions and for streamlining rehabilitation efforts under a single Ministry for better accountability.
Legal Labyrinths: Examining the Complexity of Drug Abuse Cases Pendency in Punjab, India
This study examines the persistent backlog of drug-related cases in Punjab and the effects this has on both society and the judicial system. Its aim is to identify the root causes of case delays, assess the resulting strain on courts, and understand how prolonged proceedings impact individuals and communities. Using data from the National Crime Records Bureau from 2017 to 2022, along with court records, legal databases, and government reports, the study finds that the large number and complexity of cases significantly reduce judicial efficiency. It shows that delays in resolving cases worsen social problems and erode public confidence in legal institutions. The study recommends legal reforms combined with community-based interventions, highlighting the need for improved judicial processes, timely access to justice, and collaboration between legal authorities, policymakers, and civil society to address the multifaceted challenges posed by drug abuse cases in the state.
Database on Drug Offences
NCB Annual Report 2024
The NCB Annual Report 2024 established that India continues to face a significant drug trafficking challenge due to its geographical location between two major global narcotics-producing regions, the Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran) and the Golden Triangle (Myanmar, Thailand, and Laos). This strategic location makes India both a transit corridor and a destination market for illicit narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
A major trend identified in the NCB Annual Report 2024 is the rapid rise in synthetic drug trafficking, particularly Amphetamine-Type Stimulants (ATS), methamphetamine, MDMA, and mephedrone. Seizures of synthetic drugs increased nearly six-fold between 2019 and 2024, reflecting both growing domestic demand and the expansion of clandestine manufacturing networks within the country. Illegal laboratories involved in the production of synthetic drugs have been detected in states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, and the North-Eastern region.
The report also highlights the increasing use of maritime routes for trafficking heroin, methamphetamine, and precursor chemicals. The Arabian Sea corridor connecting Iran, Pakistan, and India's western coast has emerged as a major trafficking route. Several large-scale maritime interceptions were carried out in coordination with the Indian Coast Guard and state agencies, including the seizure of approximately 86 kilograms of heroin from a foreign vessel off the Gujarat coast in 2024.
Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India (ADSI) Report, 2024
NCRB also released the Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India (ADSI) 2024 report, according to which 1,70,746 suicides were recorded in 2024. Deaths due to drug overdose saw a 50% increase in 2024 compared with he previous year.
Prison Statistics India, 2023
NCRB's Prison Statistics India, 2023, the study found that among the convicts under SLL crimes (18,479) lodged in various jails in the country, the highest number of inmates were convicted under Liquor & Narcotics Drugs - Related Acts (50.4%, 9,312 convicts). A total of 64,762 Undertrials were lodged in various jails of the country for committing offences relating to Liquor & Narcotics Drugs related acts under Special and Local Laws (SLL) as on 31st December 2023. Bihar has reported the highest number of Undertrials (14,301) under various sections of SLL followed by Punjab (9,073) and Uttar Pradesh (5,063) accounting for 22.1%, 14.0% and 7.8% of total Undertrial inmates lodged under SLL crimes which are specific to Liquor & Narcotic Drugs related offences.
Crime in India, NCRB, 2022
The latest data published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for the year 2022, state-wise and year-wise details of cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Quantity of narcotics seized and number of persons arrested under NDPS Act during 2018 to 2022.
‘Magnitude of Substance Abuse in India’ conducted by MoSJE through (NDDTC), AIIMS, New Delhi 2019
As per the comprehensive National Survey on Extent and Pattern of Substance Use in India conducted by the Ministry through NDDTC, AIIMS during 2018, the data available is for age group of 10-17 years and 18-75 years. Prevalence (in %) and estimated number of adults and children, who are currently users of various psychoactive substances as per the Survey report is as under:
Challenges
There is no concrete definition of the term ‘drug offences’ in the NDPS Act or other official legislations. This makes the term ambiguous leading to confusion and inconsistency in its use. The principle of Maximum certainty/ Legal certainty requires that the text/statute of criminal law should be specific so that the behavior expected by the law is explicitly clear. There is a need to establish the definition for ‘drug offences’, clearly stating what constitutes it.
Way Ahead
An amendment to the current NDPS Act, including the definition of ‘drug offences’ to the chateau of a new section will be a start. Defining concepts like manufacturer, cultivation, possession, use, etc can be included as the sub clauses of the section to elaborate on the definition and to give it clarity.
The NDPS Act mentions manufacture and cultivation as offences. But the definition of cultivation has not been provided. Cultivation refers to growing the narcotic plant and manufacture refers to extracting narcotic substances from the plant, they are two different categories and this needs to be clarified.
Related Terms
Drug Offences - Narcotic Substances - Psychotropic Substances - Cannabis - Manufacture drugs - Produce drugs - NDPS Act - Controlled drugs - Possession of Drugs - Use of Drugs - Definition - Illegal drugs - Prohibited drugs.
- ↑ Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, No. 61 of 1985, Acts of Parliament, 1985 (India).
- ↑ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 151.
- ↑ Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175.
- ↑ United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Dec. 20, 1988, 1582 U.N.T.S. 95.
- ↑ SAARC Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Nov. 23, 1990, 30 I.L.M. 575 (1991).
- ↑ Union of India v. Ram Samujh case (1999) 9 SCC 429.
- ↑ Joy Mitra v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3016
- ↑ Dadu @ Tulsidas vs State Of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437.
- ↑ Section 2(h), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
- ↑ Jothi @ Nagajothi v. State, 2025 INSC 1417.
- ↑ State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 595.
- ↑ Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online SC 974.
- ↑ The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Bill No. 241 of 2016, Lok Sabha, India (2016)
- ↑ Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, Implementation Framework of National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) 2018-2023 (2018).
- ↑ Gloria Lai, Drugs, Crime and Punishment: Proportionality of Sentencing for Drug Offences, Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Series No. 20, Transnational Institute (TNI) & International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) (June 2012).
- ↑ Hannah Laqueur, Uses and Abuses of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, 39 Law & Soc. Inquiry 746 (2014).
- ↑ Jain, Taru, Alternatives to Incarceration in Case of Drug Abuse: A Need for Amendment in the Indian Drug Laws, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (2025).