Authored By: SAMANTA AZRIN PRAPTY
LL.B (North South University),
Abstract
This article critically analyses the interconnection among global drug trafficking, the emergence of synthetic substances, and the expansion of internet platforms as enablers of illicit commerce. The coming together of these things has put current laws and enforcement to the test in ways never before seen. International drug control treaties and cooperation mechanisms are examined in conjunction with the domestic laws of Bangladesh and India, exposing substantial deficiencies in combating technology-facilitated narcotics trafficking. The paper discusses at least 10 crucial international legal documents, including the UN drug conventions, cybercrime treaties, and human rights treaties.1 It also looks at at least twenty examples and events that show how these treaties work. Strong arguments show that both Bangladesh and India have problems with enforcement and a lack of adaptability to digital methods. These problems include corruption, ad hoc punitive measures, and worries about human rights. The situation is clear: even though the rules are harsh, both areas are not doing an excellent job of stopping networks that sell synthetic drugs online. The essay ends with suggestions for changes to the law, greater international cooperation, and balanced plans that incorporate technology, the rule of law, and public health needs.
Keywords
Transnational Drug Trafficking; Synthetic Narcotics; Dark Web Markets; International Drug Control Law; Bangladesh Narcotics Law; Indian NDPS Act; Digital Platforms; Cybercrime; Human Rights; Enforcement Challenges.2
Introduction
The illegal drug trade has entered a new era in which synthetic drugs, complex trafficking networks, and internet platforms all come together. Traffickers are increasingly using the dark web, encrypted communications, and cryptocurrency to hide their activities. This is a “chilling intersection of technology, global supply chains, and narcotics trafficking.” This is especially true for synthetic drugs, which are drugs generated in a lab, like methamphetamine, fentanyl analogues, LSD, or new psychoactive substances (NPS).3 These drugs may be made and sent around the world with the push of a button. The outcome is an illegal market that crosses borders and often goes beyond the usual ways that police work. With this in mind, the international community and national governments are struggling to adjust.International drug control treaties require countries to make drug trafficking illegal and stop it, but they were written before cryptomarkets existed and may not have thought about problems in cyberspace. At the same time, Bangladesh and India are under pressure from both sides: on the one hand, they have to keep their international legal commitments to fight drug trafficking; on the other hand, they have problems at home that make it harder to respond effectively, such as outdated laws, procedural gaps, corruption, and human rights abuses.4 Bangladesh’s 2018 Narcotics Control Act and India’s 1985 NDPS Act are both stringent anti-drug laws, and both countries have proclaimed “wars” on drugs. However, the rise of online drug markets shows that both countries’ enforcement and legal systems are not strong enough.5 This study critically assesses the efficacy of international law and the domestic legislation of Bangladesh and India in confronting the technology-facilitated synthetic drug menace, utilising specific case studies to demonstrate both achievements and shortcomings. It will also harshly criticise the methods used by both countries, saying that heavy-handed tactics and a lack of legal action have not led to long-term solutions to this complex international problem.6
International Legal Framework and Instruments
Digital platforms for drug trafficking are fundamentally transnational, which means that there needs to be a strong international legal framework. The global response against drug trafficking and related cybercrime includes a network of treaties and ways for countries to work together. Important international agreements that have to do with this topic are:
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol) is the main convention that sets the rules for drug control in each country. It covers the growing, making, and selling of drugs. It requires states to restrict narcotic medicines to medical and scientific uses and to work together to stop illegal trading.7
Convention on Psychotropic chemicals, 1971,This treaty provides international authorities with authority over several synthetic psychotropic substances, such as hallucinogens (like LSD) and stimulants (like MDMA). Parties must make it a crime to make and sell these chemicals without permission, as their schedules declared.8
The 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is a whole convention that deals with drug trafficking and includes rules on making it a crime, seizing drugs, extraditing people, helping each other legally, and controlling precursor chemicals. It undoubtedly passes after the organised drug trade. It makes it necessary for governments to work together to prevent drug money from being laundered and to keep an eye on the ingredients needed to make synthetic narcotics.9
The Palermo Convention, signed in 2000, is the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. It is not only about drugs, but it does give the law a way to work together against organised crime networks, such as those that run drug markets on the dark web. It makes it easier to extradite people and work together on investigations for any “serious crime,” which definitely includes large-scale drug trafficking. It also encourages law enforcement to use unique investigative techniques and share information.10
The SAARC Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 2008, is a multilateral agreement that allows for the gathering of evidence, the sharing of information, and the extradition of people across South Asian borders for crimes, including drug trafficking. Since digital drug networks cross borders, this agreement gives Bangladesh and India the legal right to assist each other in investigations (albeit political will and implementation remain problems).11
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) from 2003 is important because corruption often makes it easier for drug trafficking to happen. UNCAC requires actions to stop bribery, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. These are problems that come up when trying to break up drug cartels and prosecute crimes on digital platforms. For example, corrupt officials may ignore online drug deals or misuse their investigative powers for personal gain.12
The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, It is the most critical international pact on cybercrime. It lays out how to get electronic evidence and 1019 UNTS 175.
work together across borders. Bangladesh and India are not part of the agreement, but its principles (such as promptly preserving computer data and cooperating on cybercrime) can help address online drug markets and encryption. The fact that these countries haven’t joined shows they aren’t fully integrated into global cyber-enforcement networks.13
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was signed in 1966. It is a basic human rights convention that both Bangladesh and India must follow. It protects people from arbitrary arrest or execution, and ensures due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial. These rules keep harsh anti-drug operations in control and make sure that people don’t lose their rights just because they use or sell drugs.14 Article 6 of the ICCPR has been seen as limiting the death penalty to “most serious crimes,” which raises the question of whether drug trafficking fits that definition. This is especially important for nations that impose the death penalty for drug offences.15
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was signed in 1948. The UDHR is not legally binding on its own, but it provides the basis for modern human rights principles and is often used with treaties. It declares that everyone has the right to life, liberty, security, and a fair trial. These are rights that are frequently violated during harsh drug crackdowns. International monitoring groups have indicated that tactics like murdering suspected traffickers without a trial are against these fundamental values.16
These international regulations work together to give states a set of rules to follow when they are dealing with drug trafficking in the digital age. They require countries to have strict laws at home, work together to extradite people, help each other with legal matters, share information, and protect human rights and the rule of law. Bangladesh, like India, is a party to the UN drug treaties of 1961, 1971, and 1988. This means that Bangladesh must keep stringent controls on drugs and work with other countries to stop trafficking. These treaties encompass all kinds of trafficking, whether it’s done through secret physical routes or through the “hidden corners of the internet.” It is important to note, nevertheless, that the rapid growth of online drug marketplaces has created problems that were not anticipated when these rules were made.17 The U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the INCB are both working to stop drug trafficking over the internet. For example, INCB publications declare that “trafficking activities via the darknet and shipments by mail are increasing.” They tell governments to adapt and to advocate for actions that are proportional and grounded in the rule of law. Also, as of the middle of the 2020s, talks are underway for a new UN cybercrime convention that might make it easier for countries to share evidence and fight crimes like drug trafficking on the dark web. In short, the international legal system provides the tools and the foundation we need to address the growing use of synthetic substances on digital platforms. But the success of this system depends on how well it is implemented at the national level. Bangladesh and India’s domestic laws and enforcement methods are therefore examined for their conformity with international responsibilities and their response to the emerging reality of cyber-mediated drug offences.18
Bangladesh: Draconian Statutes, Digital Blindness
The Narcotics Control Act of 2018 (NCA 2018) replaced the 1990 law. It included offences related to the cultivation, manufacturing, possession, trafficking, and financing of “narcotics,” which are broadly defined to encompass natural and synthetic drugs, psychotropics, and precursors. The Act makes it a crime to sell specific “commercial quantities” of drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine-based yaba (see ss. 36–41). It gives the Department of Narcotics Control (DNC) and the police the power to arrest people without a warrant and search their homes with less judicial oversight.19 Bangladesh appears to comply meticulously with the UN drug conventions in its printed materials. But in practice, synthetic trafficking on digital platforms has shown serious problems with policing. Cases involving private university students detained in Dhaka for importing LSD blotters acquired on the dark web and paid for with Bitcoin show an alternative method to address issues such as sending packages through Tor-based markets and using cryptocurrencies.20 Bangladeshi case law demonstrates that these structures are weak. In Rabya Khatun v. State (Jail Appeal No. 189 of 2005), the Appellate Division granted an appeal against conviction under the previous Narcotics Control Act due to significant procedural deficiencies, such as the inability to interrogate essential witnesses and to maintain the integrity of confiscated narcotics. The High Court Division decisions in State v Md Kazi Asadul and State v Md Sohag & Others, which are based on ss. Sections 19 and 22 of the 1990 Act also require forensic verification and a rigorous chain of custody in cases containing phenacetin and other preparations. More generally, Ershad v Bangladesh, 21 BLD (AD) 69, reaffirms that executive convenience cannot override legality and due process standards that narcotics police frequently contravene.21 The most significant accusation is that the state used violence outside of the law. Since 2018, human rights communities have recorded hundreds of deaths in what they describe as “crossfire” or “gunfights” during anti-drug operations, mainly by the Rapid Action Battalion. In the case of Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2009 (Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v. Bangladesh), the High Court Division issued a rule nisi questioning the legitimacy of “crossfire” killings and demanding that the officials responsible be held accountable. After that, Amnesty International, alongside Human Rights Watch, designated Bangladesh’s anti-drug campaign a de facto policy of extrajudicial execution, which is a direct violation of ICCPR articles 6 and 14.22 The NCA 2018 lacks specific rules for online advertising, darknet markets, or trafficking involving cryptocurrencies in the context of digital governance. The DNC, police cyber units, and the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission all have different rules for cyber-evidence. The outcome is a legal order that is doctrinally harsh but practically weak when it comes to finding, infiltrating, and prosecuting synthetic drug networks on encrypted platforms.23
India: Normative Sophistication, Carceral Excess
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 (NDPS Act) in India additionally follows the UN drug conventions’ concept of punishment. Sections 8, 21–27, 29, and 37 constitute a crime to generate, acquire, sell, or finance drugs. Offences involving “commercial quantity” drugs result in sentences of 10 to 20 years in jail and harsh bail conditions.24 A steady stream of Supreme Court decisions has rendered strict investigations constitutional. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172; State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand; Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 18 SCC 380 (2011) 1 SCC 609 and Than Kumar v. State of Haryana (2020) 5 SCC 260 together assert that the precautions for personal search outlined in section 50 are obligatory and meticulously restricted. In Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627, the same official cannot be both the informant and the investigator.25 In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), 9 SCC 1, and Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) 12 SCC 161, the limits the evidentiary significance of s. 67 confessions and says that convictions cannot be founded exclusively on uncorroborated utterances.26 Union of India v. Md Nawaz Khan (2021) and Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) both examine s. 37 quite strictly.27 Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020) settles the “mixture” debate by counting the whole weight of the mixture for quantity categorisation.28 High court cases like Sumit Rai v. State and Vaibhav Gupta v. State (Delhi HC) employ these ratios to allow people to proceed free or to provide them with additional time to comply with the law. of section 50.29 Cependant, India’s experience with digital synthetic drug markets shows that there are gaps between doctrinal sophistication and operational realities. The NCB’s fragmentation of darknet-based LSD networks and, most famously, “Operation Melon,” which brought down Edison “Ketamelon” Babu—India’s only “level-4” darknet vendor of LSD and ketamine—show that they are partially adapting by using parcel interception, undercover cyber-operations, and working with cryptocurrency exchanges.30 On the other hand, the Aryan Khan “Cordelia cruise” case (NCB v Aryan Khan & Ors, 2021–23) showed that the system has weaknesses. The Bombay High Court found no evidence of possession or use, and a later CBI FIR said that senior NCB officials tried to extort INR 25 crore from his family by making up a high-profile drug case. This shows how harsh laws and inadequate management encourage performative enforcement and selective targeting.31 The indictment of Banmeet Singh, an Indian citizen who ran several darknet vendor accounts selling fentanyl, LSD, and other synthetic substances, demonstrates the way unclear India’s status is on the world stage. Singh was sent back to the US from the UK and pleaded guilty in 2024. He was sentenced to providing up over USD 150 million in bitcoin, which was one of the most significant seizures of cryptocurrency by the DEA to date. The case shows that foreign countries with strong cyber-investigative and asset-tracing skills can break up Indian-linked digital narcotics networks better than Indian agents can.32
Comparative Critique: Punitive Symbolism versus Digital Governance
If one juxtaposes Bangladesh and India, one observes three essential things. First, both countries have internalised the UN drug conventions’ anti-drug stance to an almost maximalist level, accepting long prison sentences, bail bans, and, in Bangladesh’s case, the death penalty. At the same time, they have not invested enough in the cyber-forensic, financial-intelligence, and regional-cooperation systems necessary to regulate synthetic-drug trade on platforms. Strict legal limits haven’t stopped the growth of yaba marketplaces in Chattogram or LSD micro-economies among the rich and powerful in Dhaka and Delhi. They also haven’t hindered darknet vendors from using Tor and other privacy-enhancing technology.33 Second, governance diseases vary in their manifestations yet align in their consequences. Bangladesh’s utilization of “crossfire” killings and mass arrests under NCA 2018, even though the courts and the rest of the world have criticized it, is a de facto violation of the ICCPR’s protections of a fair trial and the right to life. The Supreme Court of India is more careful about following the rules, yet it allows low-level users and couriers to stay in jail for a long time before their trial and abuses like the Aryan Khan case. In neither country does the punitive spectacle lead to long-term incapacitation of mid- and upper-level actors running digital synthetic-drug supply chains.34 Third, both states haven’t yet fully utilised international and regional systems. UNTOC, UNCITRAL, UNCAC, and SAARC are agreements that some countries have signed, but none have signed the Budapest Convention. This results in it being tedious, random, and dependent on diplomacy for countries to assist their neighbours with cyber-evidence and crypto-assets.Regional trust deficiencies make it even harder for people to find employment collaboratively along permeable borders where yaba and heroin routes cross with digital coordination.35
Conclusion: Towards Rights-Compatible Digital Drug Governance
The combination of drug trafficking, synthetic drugs, and internet platforms necessitates a paradigmatic transition from solely punitive, symbolic conflicts to evidence-based, technologically informed governance. This entails that Bangladesh and India need to make at least five changes: (i) clear legal recognition of trafficking that happens online, with requirements for courier services, ISPs, and crypto-service providers to do their homework; (ii) funding for specialized cyber-narcotics units that can infiltrate the dark web, analyze blockchain data, and share evidence across borders; (iii) joining or aligning with global cybercrime tools to speed up mutual legal assistance; (iv) strict internal accountability systems to stop making up cases, extortion, and deadly “shortcuts” in enforcement; and (v) combining public health and harm reduction strategies so that vulnerabilities on the demand side are addressed instead of merely punished. If this fails to transpire, Bangladesh and India will continue to be examples of how punitive digital incapacitation fails: countries that use the most criminal law while letting encrypted synthetic-drug markets grow in the empty spaces uncovered by technological and institutional neglect. International law, when correctly interpreted, necessitates not simply criminalisation but also reasonable efficacy that aligns with human rights. The current regimes in both jurisdictions must be evaluated against that criterion and, based on the evidence, deemed inadequate.
Bibliography
Table of legislation
Narcotics Control Act 2018 (Bangladesh).
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (India).
Table of cases
Rabya Khatun v State and another Jail Appeal No 189 of 2005, 58 DLR (2006) 458; 2006 BLD 473 (HCD).
Hussain Muhammad Ershad v Bangladesh and others (2001) 21 BLD (AD) 69.
State v Md Kazi Asadul (unreported, trial court decision, Bangladesh).
State v Md Sohag and others (unreported, trial court decision, Bangladesh).
Arif Khan alias Agha Khan v State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380.
Gurdev Singh v State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558.
Hira Singh v Union of India (2020) 20 SCC 272.
NCB v Aryan Khan and others 2021 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 4.
State of Himachal Pradesh v Pirthi Chand (1996) 2 SCC 37.
State of Punjab v Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172.
Than Kumar v State of Haryana (2020) 5 SCC 260.
Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.
Union of India v Bal Mukund and others (2009) 12 SCC 161.
Union of India v Md Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100.
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609.
Sumit Rai @ Subodh Rai v State (2019) 262 DLT 685 (Del HC).
Vaibhav Gupta v State Bail Appln 2014/2019 (Del HC, 20 September 2019).
Primary sources
International human rights instruments
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217A (III)).
UN drug control conventions
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), as amended by the 1972 Protocol.
Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971).
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988).
Other UN and regional conventions
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) (2000) (“Palermo Convention”).
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) (2003).
Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention) (Council of Europe, 2001).
SAARC Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (SAARC, 2008).
Institutional reference (for which a specific instrument was cited in the paper) United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) instruments.
Secondary sources
Journal articles
Md Rezaul Islam, ‘A Critical Legal Analysis of the Noxious Effects of Drugs and Enforcement Gaps of Narcotics Control Act in Bangladesh’ (2025) 9(8) International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 4742.
Reports, NGO and IO documents, official press releases Amnesty International, Killed in “Crossfire”: Allegations of Extrajudicial Executions in Bangladesh in the Guise of a War on Drugs (Amnesty International 2019).
FIDH, Out of Control: Human Rights and Rule of Law Crises in Bangladesh (FIDH 13 2021).
Human Rights Watch, ‘Bangladesh: Suspend Deadly “War on Drugs”’ (HRW 2018). •International Narcotics Control Board, Annual Report 2020 (United Nations 2021).
Jason Eligh, Global Synthetic Drug Markets: The Present and the Future (Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime 2024).
Bangladesh PIL Forum (BDPIL), ‘BLAST v Bangladesh and Others – Extra-Judicial Killings, “Crossfire” and the “War on Drugs”’ (case commentary).
Narcotics Control Bureau (India), ‘NCB Busts Top Darknet Drug Vendor “Ketamelon” in Operation MELON (Press Release, 1 July 2025).
US Department of Justice, ‘Dark Web Vendor Sentenced for Distributing Narcotics and Ordered to Forfeit Over $150 Million’ (Office of Public Affairs, 2024) [Source verification required].
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, ‘INCB Annual Report 2020 Highlights Hidden Epidemic of Drug Use among Older People’ (UNODC South Asia, 2021).
Books / long-form doctrinal works (unpublished/online)
Jabin Nahrin Prioty, ‘Navigating the Shadows: Legal Challenges of Dark Web Activities in Bangladesh’ (nd) ( Scribd).
Newspaper articles
‘LSD Drug Found While Investigating DU Student Hafizur’s Death’ Prothom Alo (Dhaka, 27 May 2021).
‘LSD: Five Students Placed on Five-Day Remand’ Prothom Alo (Dhaka, 31 May 2021).
‘15 Gangs Running LSD Trade’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 30 May 2021).
‘15 Groups Selling Hallucinogenic Drug LSD in Dhaka, Police Say’ The Financial Express (Dhaka, 31 May 2021).
‘LSD Peddling: Five Private University Students Put on Remand’ The Business Standard (Dhaka, 31 May 2021).
‘2 NSU, 1 IUB Students Detained with LSD Drug’ The Business Standard (Dhaka, 27 May 2021).
‘5 More Arrested with LSD Drug in Dhaka’ The Business Standard (Dhaka, 30 May 2021).
‘Police Arrest Five over Possession of LSD in Dhaka’ bdnews24.com (Dhaka, 30 May 2021).
[Daily Observer article on enforcement of the Narcotics Control Act 2018] The Daily 14 Observer (Dhaka, 2021).
‘Ketamelon Expose: How NCB & Binance Brought Down India’s Top Darknet Drug Syndicate’ The Times of India (New Delhi, 25 August 2025).
‘Narcotics Control Bureau’s “Biggest Ever” Drugs Seizure: LSD Dark Net Drugs Network’ Hindustan Times (New Delhi, 6 June 2023).
‘NCB Busts Darknet-Based Drug Network, Seizes 15,000 LSD Blots, 6 Arrested’ Hindustan Times (New Delhi, 6 June 2023).
‘NCB Busts Country’s Biggest Dark-Net LSD Cartel’ News on AIR (New Delhi, 1 August 2023).
‘NCB Busts “Ketamelon” Darknet Drug Syndicate, 2 Held in Raids’ Onmanorama (Kochi, 29 December 2025).
[Washington Post article on crypto-enabled heroin trafficking by a dark-web vendor named Singh, reporting a guilty plea in US federal court] The Washington Post (Washington DC, 2024).
Blogs and online commentary
Bangladesh PIL Forum, ‘BLAST v Bangladesh and Others – Extra-Judicial Killings and the “War on Drugs” in Bangladesh’ (case-note blog).
