Drug Abuse and NDPS-Linked Crimes: An Urban and Rural Comparative StudyFocus: Narcotics crime rise among youth.

Abstract                     

The phenomenon of drug abuse, though historically rooted in medicinal and cultural traditions, has emerged in contemporary India as a significant legal and socio-medical crisis particularly among the youth. This research undertakes a comparative analysis of urban and rural patterns of narcotics-related offences involving young individuals, situating the discourse within the statutory framework of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The study critically engages with key provisions namely Sections 20, 25, 27, and 37 to assess the operational realities of criminal law enforcement in cases of drug possession, consumption, and trafficking. While urban spaces confront an influx of synthetic narcotics and designer drugs, rural areas are increasingly implicated in the cultivation and localized trafficking of traditional plant-based substances like opium and cannabis. The research further interrogates disparities in policing, prosecution, and judicial outcomes between urban and rural jurisdictions, with a particular emphasis on youth offenders and first-time users. Drawing upon statutory interpretation, judicial precedents, crime data, and field studies, the paper highlights systemic enforcement gaps, disproportionate penal consequences, and the over-criminalization of addiction. It concludes by advocating for context-specific legal reforms, including decriminalization of personal use, expansion of diversion and rehabilitation mechanisms, and the adoption of a public health–oriented jurisprudence in dealing with youth drug offences.

Keywords:

Drug Abuse, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Youth Offenders, Section 20 NDPS Act, Section 25 NDPS Act, Section 27 NDPS Act, Section 37 NDPS Act, Urban-Rural Crime Divide, Illicit Drug Trafficking.

Introduction

The consumption of intoxicating substances has been a part of human existence for centuries, often rooted in cultural, religious, or medicinal practices. However, the modern-day misuse of such substances commonly referred to as drug abuse has transformed into a critical threat to public health and social order. In the Indian context, this concern that it has escalated significantly with the rise in narcotics consumption, particularly among the young youth[1]. What once began as traditional use of locally cultivated drugs like opium and cannabis has now evolved into a widespread crisis involving synthetic narcotics, injectable substances, and pharmaceutical misuse[2].

India is currently grappling with a dual challenge: on one hand, urban areas are witnessing increasing drug dependency fuelled by lifestyle pressures and synthetic drug markets; on the other hand, rural belts are deeply entangled in the cultivation and informal trade of natural narcotics[3]. The alarming rise in youth involvement in drug-related activities whether as consumers, couriers, or small-scale traffickers demands urgent legal and social attention. Often driven by peer pressure, curiosity, lack of guidance, or socio-economic stress, young individuals become entangled in a cycle of addiction and criminalization[4].

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) serves as the primary legal framework for regulating drug offences in India[5]. Key provisions such as Section 20 (related to cannabis), Section 25 (criminal liability of property owners), Section 27 (punishment for consumption), and Section 37 (stringent bail provisions for serious offences) outline the contours of enforcement[6]. However, the rigid and uniform application of these provisions often leads to disproportionate punishment for youth, especially first-time or low-quantity offenders, ignoring the underlying public health and psychological dimensions of drug dependency[7].

Legislative Framework on Drug-Related Crimes in India

India’s approach to handling drug-related offences is mainly governed by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This Act forms the cornerstone of the country’s legal response to activities involving narcotic and psychotropic substances, such as their cultivation, production, possession, distribution, transportation, and use. In addition to the NDPS Act, several other statutes and procedural laws play a complementary role, collectively establishing a comprehensive legal system aimed at controlling drug misuse and trafficking across the country[8].

Historical background of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) was a landmark legislation in India’s legal framework for drug control. Before this Act came into existence, India’s approach to regulating narcotics was largely outdated and fragmented. The primary laws in place were the Opium Act of 1857, the Opium Act of 1878, and the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1930[9]. These colonial-era laws were mainly focused on controlling the cultivation, manufacture, and export of opium for medicinal and scientific purposes, not addressing the broader issues of drug abuse or trafficking[10].

By the late 20th century, drug trafficking networks had become more organized, and synthetic drugs were emerging as a serious threat. India, due to its geographical location between the Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran) and the Golden Triangle (Myanmar, Laos, Thailand), became a key transit country for illegal drug trade. At the same time, drug abuse was rising within the country, especially among youth. The existing laws were not sufficient to deal with the changing nature and scale of these problems.

Another major reason for enacting the NDPS Act was India’s commitment to various international treaties and conventions. India is a signatory to important global drug control treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988. These agreements required India to adopt stringent domestic laws to curb the illicit drug trade and ensure international cooperation[11].

To fulfill these obligations and to provide a comprehensive legal framework, the Indian Parliament passed the NDPS Act in 1985. The Act consolidated the law relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and introduced strict penalties, established special authorities like the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), and laid down detailed procedures for regulation, enforcement, and prosecution.

The NDPS Act marked a shift in India’s drug policy from a primarily trade-focused approach to a law enforcement and public health-oriented strategy, recognizing drug abuse as not just a legal issue, but also a social and medical problem that needed urgent attention.

Key Provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:

A Comprehensive Legal Overview

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is the cornerstone legislation that governs the control, regulation, and penalization of narcotic and psychotropic substance-related activities in India. Enacted in response to increasing drug abuse and trafficking, and to fulfill India’s obligations under international drug control treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988, the Act provides a comprehensive legal regime to regulate both legal use and criminalize illicit drug activities[12].

Definitions and Scope (Section 2)

Section 2 of the Act lays the foundation by defining key terms such as “narcotic drug,” “psychotropic substance,” “addict,” “cannabis (hemp),” “opium,” “manufactured drugs,” and “medicinal cannabis.” These definitions help identify which substances are controlled and what activities come under legal regulation. For example:

• Narcotic drugs include opium, coca leaf, cannabis, and all manufactured derivatives.
• Psychotropic substances are those listed under the Schedule to the Act and include synthetic drugs like amphetamines, LSD, and MDMA.
• The distinction between ‘small quantity’ and ‘commercial quantity’ is crucial as it directly impacts the severity of penalties[13].

Prohibition and Regulatory Framework (Section 8)

Section 8 of the NDPS Act prohibits activities such as cultivation, production, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances unless specifically permitted for medical or scientific purposes. It serves as the overarching prohibition clause, barring unauthorized engagement with controlled substances.

The Central Government may, under Section 9, permit certain licensed and regulated activities for legitimate use, such as research or pharmaceutical manufacturing. The State Governments also have powers under Section 10 to regulate within their territories.

Offences and Penalties (Sections 15 to 27A)

One of the most critical aspects of the Act lies in its penal provisions. The penalties vary depending on the type of drug involved and the quantity (small, intermediate, or commercial):

The NDPS Act, 1985, is the cornerstone of India’s legal framework against drug trafficking and misuse. It provides graded punishments depending on the nature and quantity of the narcotic substance involved. Sections 15 to 22 of the Act criminalise activities such as production, possession, sale, purchase, and transport of different narcotic and psychotropic substances, while Section 27A specifically addresses organised offences like financing illicit trade or harbouring offenders[14].

• Section 15 deals with offences related to poppy straw. According to Section 2(xviii) of the Act, “poppy straw” means all parts of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered, and whether or not juice has been extracted. The punishment depends on the quantity involved. For a small quantity, the maximum punishment is one year of imprisonment or ₹10,000 fine, or both. For a quantity less than commercial but more than small, the punishment can go up to 10 years with ₹1 lakh fine, and for commercial quantities, it can extend to 10–20 years with ₹2 lakh or higher fine[15].
• Section 16 penalises unauthorised cultivation of the coca plant. Under Section 2(vi), “coca plant” refers to any plant of the genus Erythroxylon, from which cocaine is derived. The punishment is similar to Section 15, and it aims to prevent early-stage production of cocaine in India.
• Section 17 addresses offences involving “prepared opium” as defined in Section 2(xx) of the Act. Prepared opium includes opium mixed with any other substance. The penalties again vary based on quantity: up to 1 year for small, up to 10 years for intermediate, and 10–20 years with higher fines for commercial quantity. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), the Supreme Court clarified that any substance identified as opium or its mixture falls under this provision if the procedures of seizure are duly followed.
• Section 18 relates to the production and trafficking of opium and opium poppy. “Opium” under Section 2(xv) includes both raw and coagulated juice of the opium poppy, while “opium poppy” under Section 2(xvi) is the Papaver somniferum The section penalises unauthorised cultivation and handling of these substances. In E. Micheal Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2008), the Court held that only the pure drug content should be considered for determining punishment under this section.
• Section 19 is a targeted provision to punish licensed opium cultivators or government employees who embezzle or divert opium for illegal use. The section provides a minimum of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, which can extend to 20 years, and a fine between ₹1 lakh and ₹2 lakh. This provision ensures accountability in state-controlled opium operations.
• Section 20 punishes offences related to cannabis. As per Section 2(iii), “cannabis” includes charas (resin), ganja (flowering or fruiting tops), and any mixture of the two, but excludes “bhang.” The section criminalises cultivation without licence and possession, transport, or sale without authorisation. For small quantities, the punishment is up to 1 year or ₹10,000 fine; for more than small but less than commercial, up to 10 years and ₹1 lakh fine; and for commercial, 10–20 years with ₹2 lakh or more fine. The Supreme Court in Mohan v. State (1997) ruled that all parts of the plant except leaves, when seized, can be considered cannabis under this section.
• Section 21 addresses offences related to “manufactured drugs,” including heroin, morphine, and other synthetics. Section 2(xi) defines “manufactured drug” as those substances not found in nature but created chemically or through extraction. Similar to other sections, the punishment depends on the quantity: up to 1 year for small, 10 years for intermediate, and 10–20 years for commercial. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (2004), the court emphasised the need for rigorous compliance with evidentiary procedures in such cases.
• Section 22 applies to psychotropic substances, defined in Section 2(xxiii) as any substance listed in the Schedule of the Act, including synthetic drugs like MDMA, LSD, etc. This section criminalises possession, use, and trafficking of such drugs, again using the quantity-based punishment framework. In Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014), the Bombay High Court upheld a conviction under Section 22 after confirming the chain of custody and lab reports for MDMA.
• Section 27A is among the most stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. It deals with financing of illicit traffic and harbouring of offenders. It prescribes rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, which may extend to 20 years, along with a fine of not less than ₹1 lakh. This section is aimed at dismantling the organised crime networks behind drug trafficking. In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that to convict under Section 27A, there must be concrete evidence of financing or harbouring mere association or friendship is not enough.
• Sections 15 to 22 of the NDPS Act clearly outline punishments for a variety of offences involving both natural and synthetic drugs. The Act carefully distinguishes between small, intermediate, and commercial quantities to ensure proportionate punishment. Section 27A goes beyond individual consumption or trafficking and targets the financiers and protectors of such criminal networks. Supported by the definitions provided in Section 2 of the Act and interpreted through landmark judgements, these provisions form the backbone of India’s anti-narcotics legal regime.

Bail Provisions and Restrictions (Section 37)

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) lays down substantive restrictions on the grant of bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Unlike the general rule under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) where bail is granted based on the principle of presumption of innocence and judicial discretion, Section 37 creates a statutory bar against bail, reflecting the legislature’s serious stance on the menace of drug trafficking.

Text of Section 37:

Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act specifies that notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, bail shall not be granted for offences under the NDPS Act that involve:

• Commercial quantities as specified under the Act,
• Offences punishable under Section 19 (embezzlement by licensed cultivators), Section 24 (external dealings in narcotic drugs), or Section 27A (financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders)[16].

Unless the following two cumulative conditions (commonly known as the “twin conditions”) are fulfilled:

• The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and
• The court must be satisfied that:
• There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and
• That the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

This provision essentially shifts the burden of proof to the accused, creating a presumption against the grant of bail, which is in direct contrast with general criminal jurisprudence where the presumption of innocence prevails.

Judicial Interpretation and Application

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly upheld the stringent nature of Section 37 in several landmark judgments. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Anr. [(1999) 9 SCC 429], the Court observed that the object of NDPS Act is to control and regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which have a deleterious effect on society. Therefore, strict compliance with Section 37 is necessary to prevent misuse.

In State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the Supreme Court held that liberal interpretation of bail under the NDPS Act, especially for commercial quantity offences, would defeat the legislative intent. The Court reiterated that both conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied before bail can be granted[17].

Similarly, in Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of Assam [2022 SCC OnLine SC 512], the Court emphasized that courts must record specific findings to show that they are satisfied with both the criteria under Section 37 before granting bail[18].

Impact and Rationale

The stringent bail provision under Section 37 indicates the zero-tolerance policy adopted by the legislature against the growing threat of drug abuse and trafficking. The rationale behind this approach is to ensure that accused persons involved in organised drug crimes do not easily escape the judicial process through bail. It also reflects an intent to protect public health and safety, as drug offences often have far-reaching social consequences.

However, this rigidity has also led to human rights and constitutional concerns, especially in cases of undertrial prisoners languishing in jail for long periods due to delays in investigation or trial. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1], the Supreme Court acknowledged the concerns related to long incarceration and emphasized the need for balancing enforcement with individual liberty and due process[19].

Section 37 of the NDPS Act represents a marked departure from ordinary bail jurisprudence in India. By embedding strict conditions, especially in cases of commercial quantity and serious offences, the provision aims to create a robust legal deterrent against drug-related crimes. However, this also calls for careful judicial scrutiny to prevent arbitrary denial of bail in genuine and exceptional circumstances. The twin test of non-guilt and non-reoffending remains the cornerstone for judicial discretion in NDPS bail matters.

 Presumption of Culpable Mental State and Burden of Proof (Sections 35 and 54)

Sections 35 and 54 introduce a reverse burden of proof on the accused, a significant deviation from the general criminal law principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

• Section 35 presumes the existence of a culpable mental state in the accused[20].
• Section 54 presumes that a person found in possession of narcotic drugs has committed the offence unless proven otherwise[21].

This places a significant legal burden on the accused to rebut the presumption, thus reinforcing the stringent nature of the law.

 Search, Seizure, and Arrest Procedures (Sections 41 to 68)

These provisions lay down detailed procedures for arrest, search, and seizure. Important highlights include:

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) provides a comprehensive legal framework not only for the regulation of narcotics but also for their search, seizure, arrest, investigation, and prosecution. Sections 41 to 68 of the Act deal with the procedural safeguards and enforcement mechanisms, ensuring that law enforcement officers act within the boundaries of legality and fairness. Given the severe penalties under the Act, these sections act as a vital check on potential misuse of power.

Section 41: Power to Issue Warrant

Section 41 empowers Metropolitan Magistrates or Magistrates of the First Class to issue warrants for arrest or search if they have reason to believe, based on information received from any officer not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer, that a person has committed an offence punishable under the Act or is in possession of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

Additionally, Gazetted Officers of the empowered departments (e.g., Narcotics Control Bureau, Customs, Police) can authorize search and arrest without a warrant in writing, if they have reason to believe an offence has been committed under the Act.

Section 42: Entry, Search, Seizure without Warrant in Private Places

Section 42 is one of the most litigated provisions of the NDPS Act. It allows certain empowered officers (like police, NCB, Customs) to enter and search any building, conveyance, or enclosed place without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, if they have prior information that drugs are being stored or manufactured there.

• The officer must record the reason in writing before the search.
• If the search must be conducted between sunset and sunrise, the officer must obtain prior permission from a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, unless there is imminent danger of evidence being destroyed.

This section emphasizes written documentation and strict procedural compliance to avoid arbitrary searches.

Section 43: Search and Seizure in Public Places

Section 43 permits any officer authorized under the Act to search and seize drugs, documents, or arrest persons in public places like streets, railway stations, or public transport vehicles without a warrant.

The term “public place” has been interpreted broadly by the courts and includes any location where the public has access. However, the procedural safeguards must still be followed, particularly when it comes to inventory and arrest documentation[22].

Section 50: Right of the Accused to be Searched in Presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer

Section 50 provides a critical safeguard for individuals being searched. It states that if a person is to be personally searched, the officer must inform him of his legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate[23].

This safeguard helps prevent false implication and ensures transparency and fairness in search operations.

Landmark Judgment: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 50 is mandatory, and failure to inform the accused of this right would vitiate the trial. This decision has been reaffirmed in several subsequent rulings.

Sections 52 to 57: Post-Arrest Procedure and Custody of Seized Items

These sections detail the chain of custody, documentation, and forwarding mechanisms post-seizure and arrest:

• Section 52: After arrest, the person must be informed of the grounds of arrest, and all items must be forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge or Magistrate[24].
• Section 52A: It provides for preparation of an inventory of seized goods, including photographs and samples, which must be certified by a Magistrate. This inventory can be used as primary evidence in court.
• Section 53: Empowers the Central or State Government to authorize officers from various departments (e.g., Customs, Revenue, Police) with powers of investigation under the Act[25].
• Section 55: The Officer-in-Charge of the police station must take custody of seized materials and ensure they are properly sealed and sent for analysis[26].
• Section 57: The officer conducting the arrest must report the full details of the arrest and seizure within 48 hours to his immediate superior[27].

Non-Compliance and Legal Consequences

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have emphasized that non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 55 can invalidate the entire prosecution case.

Example: State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal (2009)

In this case, the court acquitted the accused because the mandatory procedures under Section 50 were not followed, showing how crucial procedural compliance is for a valid prosecution under NDPS[28].

Sections 41 to 68 of the NDPS Act form the procedural backbone of India’s narcotic law enforcement. While they provide officers with substantial powers, they are tempered with mandatory procedural safeguards to prevent misuse and protect individual rights. Courts have been vigilant in ensuring that any deviation from these procedures leads to the exclusion of evidence or even the dismissal of charges[29]. Hence, in drug-related prosecutions under NDPS, procedure is not merely technical it is substantive and foundational to justice.

Special Courts and Speedy Trial (Section 36A)

Section 36A mandates the establishment of Special Courts to try NDPS offences. These courts are empowered to conduct summary trials, take cognizance directly of offences, and provide for pre-trial detention of up to 180 days. This reflects the Act’s focus on swift adjudication of drug-related offences[30].

Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property (Chapter VA – Sections 68A to 68Z)

The NDPS Act allows for the seizure and forfeiture of property believed to be illegally acquired through drug trafficking. If a person is convicted under the NDPS Act, or is a relative or associate of such person, their assets can be attached and forfeited[31].

• Section 68H allows authorities to issue a notice to show cause why the property should not be forfeited[32].
• Section 68I enables the competent authority to pass an order declaring such property as forfeited to the government.

This chapter was introduced through the 1989 amendment and aims to financially cripple drug cartels[33].

The NDPS Act, 1985 is one of the most stringent laws in India, designed to serve both as a deterrent and as a regulatory tool. Its comprehensive legal framework ensures that narcotic and psychotropic substances are tightly controlled, while still allowing their use for legitimate medical and scientific purposes. From reversing the burden of proof to introducing special courts and placing strict bail conditions, the Act reflects a policy of zero tolerance towards drug abuse and trafficking. However, the law has also been criticized for being harsh on addicts and under-trial prisoners, leading to calls for reform that balance deterrence with rehabilitation and justice.

Drug Abuse Trends Among Youth in Urban and Rural Areas

The phenomenon of drug abuse among Indian youth has become a significant public health and legal concern in the past decade. The issue is not restricted to a particular geographical region but manifests in both urban and rural areas, though with distinct patterns and implications. This chapter explores the trends of drug abuse among youth by analyzing national data, identifying commonly abused substances, assessing urban-rural distinctions in supply chains, and highlighting key case studies from metro cities and rural belts. The chapter aims to shed light on the socio-economic and legal dimensions of this growing menace.

National Data Analysis: NCRB & NCB Reports

Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) over the last 10 years (2013-2023) shows a steady increase in drug-related crimes. According to the NCRB’s “Crime in India” reports, cases registered under the NDPS Act rose from approximately 39,000 in 2013 to over 75,000 in 2022. Similarly, the NCB’s annual seizure data reflects a significant rise in confiscations of narcotics, particularly synthetic drugs in metropolitan cities and heroin along border states.

The NCB has also highlighted a sharp increase in the number of school and college students involved in drug use and trafficking, either as consumers or peddlers. According to a 2020 NCB report, over 10% of drug seizures in urban centers involved individuals between the ages of 16 and 25. In rural areas, although youth involvement in trafficking is less visible, consumption and dependency rates are higher due to accessibility and lack of awareness.

Types of Drugs Commonly Abused

There is a clear distinction in the types of drugs commonly abused by urban and rural youth.

• Urban Areas: Youth in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad predominantly abuse synthetic drugs such as MDMA (ecstasy), methamphetamine, LSD, cocaine, and pharmaceutical drugs like Alprazolam, Diazepam, and Tramadol. These drugs are often consumed at social events, parties, or in private settings, and are easily procured via the dark web, social media, or through app-based delivery systems.
• Rural Areas: In rural belts, youth are more inclined to use traditional narcotics including cannabis (ganja and charas), opium, bhang, and heroin (commonly known as smack). Prescription drug misuse involving codeine-based cough syrups and painkillers is also rampant. Accessibility is local and often unchecked due to weak enforcement and socioeconomic vulnerabilities.

The difference in drug choice is reflective of access, socioeconomic conditions, education levels, and the degree of urbanization. While urban users may view drug use as recreational or status-driven, rural abuse is often rooted in escapism, poverty, and cultural normalization.

Source and Supply Chain: Urban vs. Rural Differences

The supply chain networks of drugs vary considerably between urban and rural areas.

• Urban Networks: These are typically sophisticated and decentralized. Drugs are trafficked internationally, entering India through airports and sea ports. From there, they are distributed via local peddlers who utilize encrypted apps, e-wallets, and courier services. The anonymity offered by technology has made urban drug distribution more covert and harder to track. Narcotics seized in Mumbai and Bengaluru often have international origins, including countries in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
• Rural Networks: These rely on cross-border trafficking and local cultivation. In states like Punjab, drugs such as heroin are smuggled across the India-Pakistan border, while in Manipur and Mizoram, narcotics flow in from the Golden Triangle region through porous borders with Myanmar. In Bihar and Jharkhand, illegal poppy cultivation supports local opium markets. The supply chains are linear, often involving familial or village-level networks with fewer technological barriers.

In many rural areas, law enforcement is hampered by resource constraints and corruption. As a result, drug trafficking is not only prevalent but sometimes operates with impunity.

Case Studies: Contrasts Between Urban and Rural Abuse

Delhi

Delhi, being the national capital and a student hub, has seen a marked increase in drug abuse among youth. In 2020, NCB raids revealed extensive networks selling LSD and MDMA to college students via WhatsApp and Instagram. Several university campuses were found to be key locations for distribution and consumption.

Mumbai

Mumbai’s drug circuit is linked to high-profile parties and Bollywood celebrities. The 2021 Aryan Khan case brought to light the extent of synthetic drug trafficking. The NCB uncovered digital transactions and chats evidencing widespread use of MDMA and hash oil. Mumbai also acts as a major entry point for drugs arriving from the Middle East and Africa.

Bengaluru

With its IT boom, Bengaluru has become a hotspot for LSD, ecstasy, and cocaine use among tech professionals and students. In 2022, the NCB arrested foreign nationals linked to drug cartels operating rave parties. These cartels used darknet marketplaces and cryptocurrency for transactions, making enforcement extremely challenging.

Punjab

Punjab is emblematic of the rural drug crisis. The 2018 AIIMS study reported that 75% of rural youth in parts of Punjab had experimented with drugs. Heroin and pharmaceutical opioids are commonly used, often leading to full-blown addiction. The border districts of Ferozepur and Amritsar have emerged as trafficking hotspots.

Manipur

Manipur is part of the drug transit route from the Golden Triangle. The region suffers from both trafficking and consumption issues. Youth involvement in heroin abuse has led to increased rates of HIV/AIDS due to needle sharing. Ethnic conflict and unemployment further exacerbate the problem.

Bihar

In Bihar, prohibition of alcohol has inadvertently pushed many towards drug use. Champaran and Gaya have reported cases of illegal poppy cultivation. Cannabis and smack are sold openly in weekly bazaars. Youth in these regions are especially vulnerable due to poor enforcement and economic deprivation.

The trends of drug abuse among youth in India exhibit sharp contrasts between urban and rural settings. Urban youth are increasingly becoming victims of synthetic and high-cost designer drugs, while rural youth face long-standing issues related to traditional narcotics and weak enforcement. The data clearly point to the need for a two-pronged strategy: urban-focused technological surveillance and rural-focused community-based awareness and rehabilitation programs. Combating this crisis requires not just stricter law enforcement, but also widespread education, better healthcare infrastructure, and socio-economic upliftment of at-risk communities.

Challenges in Enforcement and Legal Disparities

The enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, across India faces numerous practical challenges, especially due to the socio-economic and infrastructural disparities between urban and rural regions. While the legislation was enacted with a zero-tolerance approach toward narcotic crimes, its implementation has been inconsistent and, at times, problematic. This chapter explores the systemic and legal challenges in enforcing the NDPS Act and examines the need for a more balanced approach to enforcement and rehabilitation.

Urban-Centric Law Enforcement vs. Rural Policing Limitations

Urban areas such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad tend to have dedicated narcotics units, better technological tools, trained personnel, and coordinated efforts with central agencies like the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Metropolitan police forces often collaborate with international anti-narcotics agencies and use digital surveillance, facial recognition, and cyber-forensic tools to trace drug trafficking networks.

In contrast, rural police stations often lack basic infrastructure, trained personnel, or even awareness of the technical procedures under the NDPS Act. For instance, many officers in remote areas are not adequately trained in seizure protocols under Sections 42 to 57, which often results in procedural lapses. Moreover, drug cultivation, especially of cannabis and opium, is more prevalent in rural belts like parts of Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, and Manipur, where enforcement is weak, and socio-economic dependence on cultivation makes eradication difficult. This imbalance results in selective and uneven enforcement across geographies.

Delay in Investigation and Misuse of NDPS Provisions

A persistent challenge in enforcement is the delay in investigation and misuse of NDPS provisions. Section 27 of the NDPS Act, for example, penalizes the consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. While the intent is to punish drug users and deter consumption, in practice, Section 27 is frequently misused by law enforcement officers to implicate young individuals with small quantities meant for personal use as peddlers or traffickers. This leads to over-criminalization and clogs the legal system with cases that do not warrant harsh penal action[34].

Furthermore, investigation delays lead to prolonged detention of undertrials, some of whom eventually get acquitted due to lack of evidence or improper procedural compliance. The lack of forensic support and delay in chemical analysis of seized substances worsens the problem, leading to miscarriage of justice in many cases.

Role of Corruption and Inadequate Rehabilitation Infrastructure

Corruption continues to hinder the effective enforcement of drug laws. Several reports and anecdotal evidence suggest that in both urban and rural areas, drug traffickers manage to operate with impunity due to the protection extended by corrupt law enforcement officials. Bribes, selective enforcement, and political patronage allow drug cartels to continue operations while vulnerable and low-level individuals often addicts or minor suppliers—are prosecuted harshly.

Additionally, India suffers from a severe lack of rehabilitation infrastructure. While the NDPS Act, through its amendment in 2001, allows for immunity from prosecution for addicts who voluntarily seek treatment under Section 64A, there is a glaring gap between law and practice. Most states do not have functional rehabilitation centers, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. The few centers that exist are often overcrowded, underfunded, and poorly regulated, making them ineffective in addressing addiction as a health issue.

Harsh Bail Provisions vs. the Need for a Reformative Approach

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes extremely stringent bail conditions in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. It requires that the court must be satisfied that the accused is prima facie not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. This twin test, coupled with the requirement that the public prosecutor must be heard before bail is granted, places an almost insurmountable burden on the accused. As a result, undertrials often remain in custody for years, even when the final conviction rates in NDPS cases are relatively low.

Legal scholars and human rights advocates have criticized this provision as being against the principles of criminal jurisprudence, where bail, and not jail, is considered the norm. There is growing consensus that minor and first-time offenders, especially drug users, should be diverted toward rehabilitation rather than being subjected to long pre-trial detentions[35].

The implementation of the NDPS Act faces multifaceted challenges ranging from infrastructural gaps and misuse of power to harsh procedural mandates and lack of human-centric interventions. There is a pressing need for a more balanced approach that differentiates between small-time users, addicts, and organized drug cartels. Ensuring accountability in enforcement, investing in police and judicial infrastructure, and expanding access to rehabilitation are crucial steps towards making India’s anti-narcotics framework more equitable, just, and effective[36].

Comparative Legal and Policy Frameworks

The global fight against narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances has taken diverse forms across different jurisdictions. Countries have adopted a range of legal and policy approachesfrom punitive criminal justice systems to public health-centered models. India, governed primarily by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), still follows a largely penal approach to drug offences, with limited emphasis on rehabilitation and harm reduction. A comparative analysis of international legal frameworks, especially the progressive models of Portugal and the United States, provides valuable insights and lessons for reforming India’s drug control strategies[37].

Portugal: Decriminalisation and Public Health-Oriented Approach

Portugal is widely cited as a pioneering example of decriminalisation. In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the possession and use of all narcotic drugs for personal consumption. Under this model, individuals found with drugs below a defined “threshold quantity” are not prosecuted criminally but are referred to “Dissuasion Commissions” comprising legal, social, and psychological experts. These bodies may impose non-penal measures like warnings, fines, or recommend rehabilitation[38].

Portugal’s key strategy lies in viewing drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem. This shift led to the redirection of state resources from policing and incarceration to prevention, treatment, and harm-reduction services. As a result, drug-related deaths, HIV infection rates, and incarceration levels have significantly declined in Portugal[39].

Lessons for India: India can learn from Portugal’s experience by:

• Decriminalising possession of small quantities for personal use.
• Creating non-penal mechanisms for first-time or minor offenders.
• Investing more in drug education, community rehabilitation centres, and mental health support.

United States: Federal Legal Framework and Patchwork State Approaches

The United States presents a contrasting model, with complex drug laws operating at both the federal and state levels. Under federal law, drugs are regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which classifies narcotics into Schedules I–V. Schedule I substances (like heroin and cannabis) are deemed to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, making their possession and trafficking heavily punishable.

However, many U.S. states have taken a more liberal approach. Over 20 states have legalised recreational cannabis, and nearly all have permitted its medical use. Several states, including Oregon, have even decriminalised small amounts of all drugs and shifted focus to treatment.

The U.S. federal policy still reflects a war-on-drugs ideology, rooted in tough-on-crime strategies. However, there is growing recognition of the failure of mass incarceration and its disproportionate impact on minority communities. Recent policy changes advocate for harm reduction, opioid substitution therapy (OST), and the expansion of drug courts that offer alternatives to incarceration.

Lessons for India:

• India’s NDPS Act does not differentiate between types of drugs or degrees of harm caused. Adopting a graded punishment system based on the type and impact of the drug, similar to the U.S. CSA, could make the law more rational.
• The development of specialised drug courts in India to handle addiction-related cases could reduce pendency and prioritise treatment over punishment[40].

Rehabilitation and De-addiction Models Across Jurisdictions

In countries like Netherlands, Switzerland, and Canada, drug policy includes robust harm-reduction programs. For example:

• Switzerland introduced heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) for chronic users.
• Canada supports safe consumption sites and decriminalisation debates, along with comprehensive addiction support services.
• The Netherlands allows controlled use of soft drugs in licensed cafes and focuses on prevention and de-stigmatisation of drug users.

Rehabilitation in these jurisdictions is integrated into primary health services, ensuring accessibility and reducing the social stigma around drug addiction.

India’s Challenges in Comparison:

• The NDPS Act allows for immunity from prosecution for addicts who voluntarily seek treatment (Section 64A), but the availability of quality rehabilitation centres is abysmal.
• Most Indian rehab facilities are urban-centric, poorly funded, and lack professional staff. There is no national framework for community-based drug treatment.
• Absence of data-based policy making and limited coordination between health and law enforcement agencies hinders effective de-addiction responses.

The Indian drug control system needs to transition from a punitive model to a more humane and evidence-based framework. While international conventions must be adhered to, there remains ample space within the global legal regime to innovate locally. A comparative understanding of how other countries particularly Portugal and the U.S. have navigated the drug problem reveals that flexibility, public health integration, and decriminalisation can yield far more sustainable outcomes than rigid criminalisation. India’s future drug policy must reflect a shift in priority: from punishment to prevention, and from incarceration to care.

Judicial Trends and Case Law Analysis

The interpretation and application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) by the Indian judiciary have undergone significant evolution over the years. Judicial pronouncements have played a pivotal role in balancing the strict provisions of the NDPS Act with fundamental rights, especially those under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. In this chapter, we examine key judgments that have shaped the legal landscape around drug-related crimes in India, and the differing approaches in urban versus rural settings, with a specific focus on how juvenile offenders are dealt with under the intersecting framework of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) 9 SCC 362

In one of the most significant rulings under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu clarified the evidentiary value of confessions made to officers under the NDPS Act.

Issue: Whether a confession made to an officer under Section 53 of the NDPS Act (who is deemed to have police powers) is admissible as evidence.

Held: The Supreme Court held that officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” for the purposes of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[41]. Therefore, any confessional statement made to them is inadmissible in evidence unless it complies with the safeguards under Sections 164 and 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Significance:
This judgment overturned earlier precedents like Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India and brought NDPS proceedings in line with constitutional protections against self-incrimination[42]. It significantly narrowed the scope of evidence admissibility, placing greater importance on independent corroboration and procedural fairness[43].

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172

This landmark decision interpreted the procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that an accused has the right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.

Issue: Whether failure to inform the accused of this right invalidates the search and seizure process.

Held: The Supreme Court held that informing the accused of their right under Section 50 is mandatory. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the search illegal, and any recovery based on such a search is inadmissible.

Significance: The Court emphasized that due to the stringent nature of the NDPS Act, strict procedural compliance is essential to prevent misuse of power and ensure fair trial. The judgment helped in laying down procedural discipline among law enforcement agencies[44].

Urban vs. Rural Interpretation of NDPS Procedures

There exists a discernible difference in how NDPS cases are prosecuted and defended in urban versus rural areas:

• Urban Context: Accused in metro cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru often have better access to legal counsel. Courts in these jurisdictions are more inclined to examine procedural lapses strictly, especially post Tofan Singh. Digital surveillance and structured police mechanisms allow for higher evidentiary standards[45].
• Rural Context: In contrast, in rural areas of states like Punjab, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, enforcement agencies often face infrastructural challenges, leading to procedural lapses. Many accused persons are from underprivileged backgrounds and lack legal representation. Courts in rural belts have sometimes been observed to take a more lenient view of procedural violations, though this trend is changing with increasing awareness of landmark rulings[46].

This disparity creates unequal application of justice and underlines the need for uniform enforcement and judicial sensitization.

Juvenile Justice and NDPS: Youth Under 18

The interplay between the NDPS Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 raises important concerns. Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act defines a juvenile as a person who has not completed 18 years of age. If a child below 18 is found in possession of narcotics or involved in trafficking, the case must be handled under the JJ Act[47].

Judicial Interpretation: Courts have consistently held that juveniles cannot be tried under the NDPS Act in the same manner as adults. In Rajendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the High Court ruled that juveniles must be dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) regardless of the gravity of the offence under the NDPS Act[48].

Challenges:

• Determining the age of the accused in the absence of reliable documentation remains a major issue in rural areas.
• Often, children are used as couriers by drug cartels, especially in border states like Manipur and Punjab. Courts have called for rehabilitation-based intervention in such cases rather than punitive action[49].

Judicial pronouncements under the NDPS Act reflect a conscious attempt to maintain a balance between national interest and individual rights. The Supreme Court’s insistence on procedural safeguards has strengthened the rights of the accused. However, disparities in legal awareness and infrastructure continue to affect consistent enforcement across the country[50]. Importantly, the evolving jurisprudence around juvenile involvement in drug crimes calls for an urgent policy response that is rehabilitative rather than retributive. Moving forward, it is essential that training and sensitization of both judiciary and police are emphasized to ensure uniform application of judicial standards in drug-related offences.

Conclusion

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was enacted with the noble intention of curbing drug trafficking and illegal drug use in India. Over the years, the Act has provided a robust legal framework for controlling the production, distribution, and consumption of narcotics and psychotropic substances. However, in practice, its stringent provisions particularly around bail, personal consumption, and procedural compliance—have created a system that often punishes rather than rehabilitates, especially in the case of youth and first-time offenders.

This research has highlighted the urgent need to strike a balance between criminal enforcement and public health priorities. Chapters examining drug abuse patterns among youth, urban-rural disparities in enforcement, and procedural flaws in arrest and trial processes demonstrate that India’s current legal model may be outdated in the face of evolving socio-economic and global drug trends.

The comparative analysis with international frameworks such as Portugal’s decriminalisation model and the U.S. approach to rehabilitation shows that drug use can be tackled effectively without criminalising users. At the same time, case law analysis from Tofan Singh to Renusagar illustrates how Indian courts have gradually evolved to protect procedural rights and curb abuse of power under the NDPS Act.

Ultimately, India’s drug policy must move towards a more humane, evidence-based, and regionally responsive model. This means decriminalising minor personal use, particularly for young and first-time offenders, investing in large-scale rehabilitation and mental health infrastructure, and training police and judicial authorities on fair and effective implementation of the law.

A shift from punitive control to restorative justice is not only necessary but inevitable. Only through such reform can India ensure that its fight against drugs does not become a fight against its own people, and that justice, fairness, and human dignity remain at the heart of its legal and policy framework.

Reference(S):

• Abhinav Sekhri, ‘Bail Not Jail? The Trouble with Section 37 of the NDPS Act’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog, 2021) https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com accessed 19 July 2025
• Aparna Chandra and Keerthana Medarametla, ‘The Bail Conundrum under NDPS Act: A Study of Judicial Approaches’ (Centre for Law and Policy Research Discussion Paper Series, 2020)
• Ministry of Home Affairs (India), Annual Report 2022–23 (Government of India 2023) https://www.mha.gov.in accessed 19 July 2025
• Mistry of Social Justice and Empowerment (India), Directory of De-Addiction Centres in India (2021)
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2023 (2023)
• Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, India’s Drug Policy: Towards a Human-Centric Approach (2020)
• Vivek Mishra, ‘Rural Policing in India: Issues and Challenges’ (2021) 12(1) Indian Police Journal 57

[1] Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Magnitude of Substance Use in India 2019, at 9 (2019), https://socialjustice.gov.in.

[2] Id. at 15–17.

[3] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2022, U.N. Doc. E.22.XI.10, at 75 (2022).

[4] K.K. Saxena, Drug Abuse and Youth in India: Trends and Challenges, 7 Indian J. Soc. Dev. 45, 49 (2020).

[5] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2022, Vol. II, at 756, https://ncrb.gov.in.

[6] ee Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 (emphasizing the need for proportionality in arrests); see also Vijay Raghavan, Drug Offenders and the Law in India: A Human Rights Perspective, 11 Soc. Legal Rev. 112, 120 (2021).

[7] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, No. 61 of 1985, § 2, Acts of Parliament, 1985 (India).

[8] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, No. 61 of 1985, § 2, India Code (1985)

[9] The Opium Act, No. 1 of 1878, India Code (1878).

[10] The Opium Act, No. 13 of 1857, India Code (1857).

[11] The Dangerous Drugs Act, No. 2 of 1930, India Code (1930).

[12] Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 151

[13] Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175.

[14] United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Dec. 20, 1988, 1582 U.N.T.S. 95.

[15] State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 S.C.C. 172 (India).

[16] NDPS Act 1985, s 37(1)(b); see also s 37(1)(a).

[17] State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122],

[18] Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of Assam [2022 SCC OnLine SC 512],

[19] Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1

[20] NDPS Act 1985, s 35.

[21] Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.

[22] NDPS Act 1985, s 43.

[23] NDPS Act 1985, s 50.

[24] NDPS Act 1985, s 52.

[25] NDPS Act 1985, s 52A.

[26] NDPS Act 1985, s 53.

[27] NDPS Act 1985, s 57.

[28] State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal (2009) 13 SCC 779.

[29] NDPS Act 1985, s 36A.

[30] NDPS Act 1985, s 36A(4).

[31] NDPS Act 1985, ss 68A–68Z.

[32] NDPS Act 1985, s 68H.

[33] NDPS Act 1985, s 68I.

[34] Ministry of Home Affairs, Annual Report 2022-23 (Government of India, 2023) https://www.mha.gov.in accessed 19 July 2025

[35] Narcotics Control Bureau, NCB Annual Report 2022 (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022).

[36] NDPS Act 1985, ss 42–57.

[37] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (India).

[38] Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens, ‘What Can We Learn from the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?’ (2010) 50(6) British Journal of Criminology 999.

[39] European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Drug Policy Profiles – Portugal (2011) https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-policy-profiles/portugal_en accessed 19 July 2025.

[40] EMCDDA, Switzerland: Country Drug Report 2022 https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2022/switzerland_en accessed 19 July 2025.

[41] Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 25; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ss 164 and 281.

[42] Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 431.

[43] Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) 9 SCC 362.

[44] State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172.

[45] See Tofan Singh (n 1); also refer to Abhinav Sekhri, ‘The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Tofan Singh: A Welcome Check on NDPS Abuses’ (2020) 5 NUJS L Rev 134.

[46] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, s 50.

[47] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 2(k).

[48] Rajendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 35863 of 2021 (Madhya Pradesh HC, 3 August 2021).

[49] Over 9000 thousand! (n.d.). latestlaws.com. https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/madhya-pradesh-high-court/2021/august/2021-latest-caselaw-4751-mp/

[50] see Rahul Tripathi, ‘Drug Cartels Using Children as Mules in Border States’ The Times of India (New Delhi, 17 September 2021).