Open Access Research Article
AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S DRUG POLICY AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND REGULATORY LANDSCAPE
Published Paper
Article Details
AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S DRUG
POLICY AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND REGULATORY LANDSCAPE
AUTHORED BY
- NEHA MONDAL & DR. SUPERNA VENAIK
Abstract
There are two main categories of crimes
traditional crimes and white collar crimes. Traditional crimes, which target specific individuals, such as homicide, theft, assault, etc.; and White collar or socio-economic crimes, which target
the broader population, such as smuggling, hoardings, adulteration, illegal drug trafficking, sales of psychotropic and narcotic medications, etc. White collar crimes are relatively new and can
be characterised as any illicit conduct carried out with the intent to acquire cash, property, business, personal, or
profit. These are the crimes which are mostly carried
out by powerful organised crime groups. Politicians, police
enforcement, and the criminals who commit these crimes
directly are typically connected and have strong nexus among themselves. India is renowned for producing a number of medicines that are manufactured legally and for the pharmaceutical industry. It also has a lengthy
history of using
drugs in daily activities and ceremonies. It is only recently that this
historically drug-abundant country
has started to recognise that drug use is an issue. India is a great place to
study the conditions surrounding both
responsible and irresponsible drug use because of its history of accepting drug use in socially acceptable
settings. At best, international attempts to impose interdiction, lower agricultural output, and impose criminal
fines have been fruitless. The development in addiction and related criminal activity
that has coincided with increased international pressure on India to curtail
drug usage through legal methods has raised doubts about the effectiveness of this strategy. Identifying the
qualities of drugs that appeal to some people
more than others and emphasising appropriate usage would be more sensible
approach. India's stance on drugs
is somewhat diverse, ranging from modernization and traditional to broad availability, stringent
implementation, acceptance, and restriction, as well as the production of opiates for therapeutic
reasons and the absence of ability
to obtain them for such purposes.
In policy analysis, references to the lengthy history of cannabis and opium
usage in India are common. India has extensive licit and illicit
drug cultivation, serves as a transit route,
and has a sizable consumer market. As such, it faces challenges with
both “supply” and “demand” management
in its drug policy. The nation is involved in discussions regarding the illicit
production of drugs, precursor
regulation, and the non-medical use of prescription pharmaceuticals due to its sizable chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Colonial Era
Since the ancient era, people in India have used cannabis
for religious, medicinal, and entertainment reasons. Cannabis
use has been mentioned in writing since 2000 B.C. The British
attempted to regulate it once they colonised it; they passed excise laws
authorising cultivation and imposing
taxes on hemp sales. Opium has been cultivated and used since the tenth century, according to historical accounts. With
the Opium Acts of 1857 and 1878, the British brought poppy cultivation and opium production (but not consumption)
under stronger government, turning
opium into a large-scale commercial activity during the colonial era. By the
1920s, the colonial government’s
economically motivated drug policy was coming under fire from the burgeoning nationalism movement. Indian
officials separated themselves from customary drug
use, and drug elimination was declared to be an aim of policy. Numerous
provincial administrations
enacted legislation to limit opium use. Cannabis was deemed an intoxicating substance and was subject to provincial
excise laws. The Dangerous Drugs Act was passed in 1930 with the intention of strengthening and expanding the law’s control
over drugs made from coca, hemp (cannabis), and poppies. It
did this by imposing licence requirements on the production, sale, and importation of these drugs as well as by
penalising unlicensed activity. There
were no crimes related to marijuana or drug use. The current legislation is
still based on the structure of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, particularly with regard to the statutory definitions of cocaine, opium, hemp, the
classification of certain substances as "manufactured drugs," regarding
the division of the federal and state
governments' rule-making powers.
Post-Independence Era
The 1940
Act which is substances and Cosmetics Act, was enacted to regulate therapeutic substances, which included opium and
cannabis. Nonetheless, the Dangerous Drugs Act continued to be in effect. When the
country won its independence in 1947, drugs, “dangerous” substances, and items
liable to excise
taxes were all severely restricted, including cocaine. This argument
on post-independence conjectured. Following the adoption
of the Indian Constitution in 1950, all legislation were superseded by constitutional provisions, particularly those pertaining to basic rights. Drug
regulations have faced challenges from some who said they were discriminatory and infringed on
farmers’ freedom of occupation and commerce. But the cases were not successful. Courts cited India’s international
drug control obligations among other
things to uphold the limitations on commerce, consumption, and cultivation.
Article 47 of the Constitution, which
says that “The State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal
purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are
injurious to health,” further cemented
the prohibitionist sentiment. Despite being unenforceable, these Directive
Principles of State
Policy are often used to justify punitive
drug laws.[1]
The Constitution also designated topics for exclusive or concurrent legislative
action by Parliament or state
legislatures. The concurrent list was expanded to include “drugs and poisons,” enabling state and federal
legislation. "Public health" and "prisons and other establishments of like character and people incarcerated therein" are the sole things on the state
list. “The allocation of legislative powers holds significance as it
establishes the capacity of state
governments to deviate from federal drug laws and utilise alternative
approaches in domains where they
possess the authority to formulate policy. Many Central and State laws were used in India to impose statutory
control over narcotic drugs before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was passed. The three main Central Acts were the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1930, the Opium Act
of 1857, and the Opium Act of 1878. India is
party to three UN conventions: the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; the Convention on Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988; and the UN Single
Convention on Narcotics Drugs, 1961. These conventions prescribe various forms
of control aimed at achieving
the dual objectives of preventing the abuse of psychotropic substances and limiting their use for medical and scientific
purposes.
PUNISHMENTS UNDER NDPS ACT
The amount of narcotics
confiscated determines the penalty under the NDPS Act. The seriousness
of the offence will determine how harsh the punishment is. In the event that
the narcotics were used for personal
use, a lighter sentence can be applied. As a result of the changes, the penalty is now divided into
three groups according to the amount of drugs
discovered, and the judge still has the last say over how severe the punishment should be. When it comes to cannabis, the penalties for cultivating the plant can be severe, ranging from ten years in prison to a fine of up to Rs one lakh.
In addition, the penalties for those who cultivate,
make, possess, sell, buy, transport, and trade in illicit cannabis
vary based on the quantity
found. That means that if someone is caught in
possession of a “small quantity” of cannabis, they could be imprisoned for up to a year and fined up to Rs 10,000.
If found guilty, the offending party may face a harsh prison term of as long as ten years and a monetary
penalty of up to one lakh rupees,
given that the quantity exceeded a small quantity but was below a commercial quantity. Commercial sales of marijuana will carry a severe punishment
of no less than a decade, if not a maximum
of twenty years in prison.
The court can additionally issue
a penalty of no less than one lakh rupees up to two lakh rupees,
in addition to the power to levy a fine beyond the amount of two lakh rupees. Less than one kilogramme of cannabis is considered a “small quantity” according to the Department of Revenue, whereas
twenty kilogrammes or more is considered a “commercial quantity.”Furthermore, the Act’s Section 27 addresses the penalties for consuming
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It specifies that the punishment
for consuming any of these
drugs—including cocaine, morphine, diacetylmorphine, and others— will be one year in jail or a fine of up
to twenty thousand rupees. Any use of other drugs for which there is no fixed punishment has the possibility of six
months in jail and a monetary penalty
of as much as ten thousand rupees for those found guilty. Repeat offenders face
harsh penalties outlined in the Act,
which include up to 1.5 times the maximum jail sentence and up to 1.5 twice the maximum fine. If
convicted guilty of a similar offence again, repeat offenders may even be sentenced to death, depending
on the amount of drugs recovered. A violation of the law governing the NDPS may result in precisely the same penalties
as the first violation, as stated
in Section 28 of the Act. A similar provision in Section 25 declares that
anyone who willfully permits someone
else to commit an offence. A 1989 change to the Act made the sentences imposed under the NDPS Act
non-commutable, with the exception of those for drug use, given the seriousness
of the offence.
TABLE IS MENTIONED BELOW TO SHOW THE QUANTUM
OF PUNISHMENTS AS PER THE KIND OF DRUG
USED AND THE QUANTITY USED.[2]
|
DRUG
|
QUANTITY AND PUNISHMENT
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity
|
|
|
Small quantit y
|
Punishments
|
Commercial Quantity
|
Punish ments
|
greater than
small but lesser
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
than
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
commerci
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
al
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
(Interme
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
diate)
|
||
|
Heroine
|
5g
|
|
250g
|
 severe penaltie s, ranging from Rs. 1 lakh to
Rs. 2
lakh, and a minimu
m sentence of 10 years to a maximu m of 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Opium
|
25g
|
|
2.5kg
|
Rigorous
imprisonm ent that may extend to 10 years &
fine that may extend to Rs 1 lakh
|
||
|
Morphi
|
5g
|
|
250g
|
|||
|
ne
|
|
Maximum sentence of
|
|
|||
|
Ganja
|
1000g
|
one year in hard labour,
|
20kg
|
|||
|
(Canna
|
|
a fine of up to Rs.
|
|
|||
|
bis)
|
|
10,000, or both
|
|
|||
|
Charas
|
100g
|
|
1kg
|
|
||
|
(Canna
|
|
|
|
|||
|
bis
|
|
|
|
|||
|
resin)
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Coca
|
100g
|
|
2kg
|
|
||
|
Leaf
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Cocaine
|
2g
|
|
100g
|
|
||
|
Methad
|
2g
|
|
50g
|
|
||
|
one
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Amphet
|
2g
|
|
50g
|
|
||
|
amine
|
|
|
|
|||
|
THC
|
2g
|
|
50g
|
|
||
|
LSD
|
0.002g
|
|
0.1g
|
|
||
The death sentence for several repeat offences (manufacturing, control,
transportation, import, and export)
containing a significant quantity of drugs is one indication of the NDPS Act’s seriousness. The list of crimes that were
punishable by death was reduced in 2001 after it was first made necessary
in 1989. Two drug felons
were given death sentences in February 2008 by
NDPS special tribunals located
in Ahmedabad and Mumbai, respectively. Paradoxically, cannabis
(charas) was mentioned in both sentences. Following a constitutional challenge,
the Bombay High Court ruled that the
obligatory clause was unconstitutional and interpreted it as discretionary, meaning that the court of
appeals would hear the offender’s case and have the option of sentencing them to prison rather than death. Both
guilty parties were later given 30- year jail sentences
by independent judgements. Another inmate
who was given a death
sentence by the judge in the
trial was successful in his appeal. It is unknown what became of the fourth offender
who was likewise
executed under Punjab’s
NDPS Act. The government further
claims that the International
Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has never opposed the death sentence being applied to crimes involving lesser drug quantities in other Asian
nations. It is unclear how the authorities will react to the INCB’s March 2014 announcement, which urged states to think
about doing away with executions for offences involving
drugs.
Quantity-based sentencing
The amount and kind of drugs found have a significant impact
on the sentence and punishment scale. Determining the amount of drug used in a crime is therefore critical, and this is a topic
of significant litigation, especially when it comes to the legal terms "combination," "the
preparation," and "with or without unaltered substance."
Since the National Drug Policy Act (NDPS
Act) does not provide guidance on this matter, certain courts have begun to
apply the legal definitions of drugs—especially those that
pertain to a specified number—to ascertain the quantity at issue. This resulted in
divergent interpretations and findings within the same drug as well as within various
pharmacological classes. The “absolute purity
vs. total weight”
debate persisted
even after the Supreme Court ruled that, in the case of pharmaceuticals combined with “impartial substances,” the only factor
that matters in deciding whether a medicine constitutes a small or commercially available
amount is its actual composition. A year later, the government said that the quantity had to
be determined by considering the mass of the total product that was confiscated, not only the quantity of pure
pharmaceuticals. This phenomenon is
immensely destructive to drug consumers and other minor criminals who run the
possibility of incurring
terms for intermediate or commercial-level offences,
as illicit narcotics
are often found in
substantially separated and pure forms. Based on competencies sentencing is praised as being
impartial and equitable, but it misses other crucial elements like the
offender's involvement and motivation. Penalties
for mere possession are the same as those for dissemination for profit. The existence of
obligatory minimum sentences, wherein variance is permitted only for increasing and not decreasing the term, is
another justification for judges to impose
equal punishments for both categories of offences.
JUDGEMENTS ON RIGOROUS PUNISHMENTS
The High Court of Calcutta’s decision from April 17, 2018, which
partially granted the appellant’s appeal contesting the sentence and conviction he received under Section 21© of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is the subject of this appeal. The appellant was found guilty by the Additional District
& Sessions Judge and received
a sentence under Section 21© to eighteen years of
rigorous imprisonment, a fine of two lakh rupees, and twelve months of imprisonment if he failed to pay the fine. The
appellant faced six months of simple
jail if the fine of Rs. 2 lakh was not paid, even though the High Court upheld
the conviction and lowered the
penalty to sixteen years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. This appeal was filed out of anger over the
High Court’s ruling. On November 26, 2018, this Court sent out a notice that was restricted to the sentence’s
amount. The appellant's counsel argues that
the court that will hear the case did not take into account subsection 32B of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the year 1985, and that there was no proof that any of the requirements for imposing a sentence longer than the minimum amount of
time of imprisonment specified in clauses (a) through (f) applied in this particular case. Because of this, the minimum jail sentence stipulated for
the offence under Section 21(c) could not have been imposed on the appellant, which is a period of ten years. He
argues that Section 32B only permits
the imposition of a sentence greater than the minimum term of imprisonment in
the event that any of the conditions
listed in 32B, including items (a) through (f), are met. Given the facts of this case, the appellant
could only have received a sentence of ten years, which is the minimum punishment allowed under
Section 21(c), in the absence of any aggravating factors listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985’s Section
32B interpretation is at the centre of the current
appeal’s primary disagreements. The problems are as follows:
i.
If none of the elements listed in Section 32B, clauses
(a) through (f), were present, may the trial court have sentenced
the offending party to more time behind bars? ii)
Was
it impossible for the trial court to consider any
additional circumstances in addition to those listed in sections (a) through
(f) when imposing a sentence.
ii.
that was longer than the required minimum term of
imprisonment? Since the two problems are related,
we address them jointly. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Drugs
Act of 1985 lists many
violations along with their corresponding penalties. Conviction in this
instance has been documented in accordance with Section 21©. The following is Section 21, which is pertinent to this
case:
“21. Punishment
for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.- Whoever,
in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or
condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells,
purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured
drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees, or with both;(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than
commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees; © where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may,
for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh
rupees.”[4] The penalty
imposed by the trial court. A sentence that exceeds the minimum based on the quantity
of substance cannot be challenged, even though the Court did not consider the circumstances
listed in clauses (a) to (b) of the enumerated under Section 32B.
But if the
Court considers any factor other than those listed in Section 32B, (a) to (f)
and imposes a punishment greater than
the minimum sentence, higher courts may review the case to determine whether the factor the Court considered was
relevant. No other element listed in Section
32B(a to f) can be used to overturn an award of a sentence that is greater than
the minimum when the court imposes a
penalty that is higher than the minimum based on an irrelevant factor. In this instance, the High Court determined that while 8.175 kg of heroin was purportedly retrieved
in total from the appellant, only 609.6 kg of heroin was really discovered to be in their possession. According to the analysis report, the appellant was discovered
to be in possession of 609.6
grammes of narcotic drugs, the High Court ruled. It is significantly greater
than the amount sold commercially, penalty that exceeds the minimum is
appropriate. The High Court lowered
the sentence from eighteen to sixteen years. We therefore adhere to the trial court’s and the High Court’s
decision to impose a sentence that was greater than the minimum. However, after taking into account all the pertinent
information, including the High Court's
finding that the appellant was only a carrier, we come to the conclusion that the sentence
reduction from 16 years to 12 years will serve the goal of justice.
Consequently, the appellant faces a
hefty 12-year prison sentence and a monetary penalty of approximately two lakh,
even in the event that the verdict
is upheld. The appellant will additionally serve an additional six months in ordinary jail if the balance is
not paid. The appeal is granted in part,
as previously mentioned.
IMPACT OF DRUG ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Addiction and drug usage have negative effects on individuals of every generation.
Adolescent drug users may behave badly in school, act eliminated or even
quit. Drug use throughout a person's
formative years can alter the brain permanently and raise the likelihood of dependence. Addicts in their adult
years may experience difficulties with focus, memory, and clarity of thought. Their drug usage may cause them to exhibit bad social behaviours, which negatively
affects both their personal and professional relationships and productivity.
Drug- addled parents can lead to
disorderly, stressful households, child maltreatment, and neglect. These circumstances impair
children's development and psychological health
at home and may pave the way for drug addiction in the
following generation. Drug exposure during pregnancy increases the risk of early birth and underweight birth. This
exposure may hinder the child's learning process
and have an impact
on behaviour in the future. Neonatal
abstinence syndrome (NAS) is the term for the condition in
which they may also develop an addiction to opioids or other drugs that the mother took when she was pregnant.
Researchers look at how medicines affect
the brain and behaviour. They create drug-avoidance and addiction recovery
programmes using the
information provided here. Additional investigation facilitates the
implementation of these concepts in
the community. Drug usage has
numerous, diverse side effects that impact individuals
of all ages. Addiction is defined as a recurrent, chronic illness characterised
by compulsive substance seeking and use despite harmful consequences. It is categorised as a brain
disorder because it involves functional changes to incentive, anxiety,
and discipline brain circuits. Those
changes could continue long after the person stops using their drugs. Addiction and other disorders, such as heart disease, are very similar.
Both are generally
curable and avoidable, but
they both have significant negative effects and impede with an organ's capacity to function correctly. If ignored, they can be lethal and persist for the entirety
of a person's life.
People generally use drugs for a
variety of purposes.
To feel happy: Drugs have the
ability to produce intense pleasure. According to the kind of substance used, there might be additional
effects beyond the first high. For example, feelings of power, trust, and increased energy follow the euphoria from chemicals like cocaine. Contrarily, euphoria brought on by opiates
like cocaine can be accompanied by feelings of
satisfaction and tranquilly.
To lift one's
spirits – Some people who suffer from stress, hopelessness, and social
anxiety start taking medications to
help them feel less uneasy. Both the beginning and persistence of illicit substance use, along with the
recidivism of treatment for addiction patients, can be significantly influenced by stress.
To do better –Some people feel under pressure to focus more intently at work, in the classroom, or in sports. The choice to try or continue using drugs, such as cocaine or prescription pharmaceuticals,
may be influenced by this. Even little
amounts of drug use have some hazards. Consider how quickly a drunken social
drinker may take a car, turn a pleasurable pastime into a multi-mortal disaster, and then get behind the wheel while
intoxicated. Taking drugs on a regular
basis, such as abusing opioids to get high, can lead to similarly dangerous
outcomes as poisoning and operating
a vehicle while intoxicated. Inquiry as well as social pressure In addition
to the powerful impact of social
pressure, teenagers are particularly susceptible in this way. Substance abuse can arise from a
variety of possible risk factors during the growth phase of adolescence, including classmates who use drugs. When
people use narcotics for the first time, they may experience what seem to be positive
effects. They might
believe that they are in charge
of how they use them. However,
narcotics have the ability to quickly take over a person's life. If drug use continues, ultimately
one's enjoyment of other enjoyable things begins to diminish, and one needs to take the medication as a way to feel "average." They find
it difficult to control their need even though using drugs causes a lot of
problems for them and the people they
care about. On the other hand, continuous use can seriously impair
self-control. This loss of control is
what defines addiction. Research on brain imaging in addicts reveals structural changes in brain regions essential for
decision-making, memory, learning, and controlling behaviour. These changes explain the obsessive nature of
addiction. One factor does not determine
one's likelihood of becoming addicted to drugs. As with other medical
conditions, the likelihood of
developing a drug addiction differs from individual to person, and no single trait can accurately predict whether
someone will become addicted. In general, an individual's number of risk variables raises the possibility that consuming substances will result in consumption of drugs and addiction. On the other hand, protective factors reduce a person's
risk. Both protective and danger factors
can be attributed to social
and biological elements. The genetic composition of an individual, encompassing their genetic
makeup, stage of development,
gender, and cultural origins can impact their susceptibility to addiction. It
is believed that forty to sixty
percent of an individual's susceptibility to addiction is inherited, including
the impact of environmental factors
on an individual's gene expression, a phenomena called epigenetics. In addition, compared
to other categories, addiction and use of drugs are more prevalent among young people and those with neurological
problems. A crucial function for early familial interactions is played in both.
REGULATORY
LANDSCAPE[5]
Treatment for drug abuse
The NDPS Act encourages drug-using individuals to receive medical aid as
a "alternative" to and
separate from criminal prosecution. Numerous of the Act's provisions
decriminalise drug usage and crimes involving tiny amounts of the
drug and promote rehabilitation treatment.
National Fund
The National Fund for the Control of Drug Abuse was established in May 1989. Almost twenty
years later, in 2006, guidelines were set for its management. The federal
government, individual donations, and the sale of property
confiscated from the illegal drug trade are possible sources of funding for the fund. A governing board, consisting of a senior officer and other government- appointed members, screens
applications. Grant proposals for drug control activities, including treatment, can be submitted by NGOs and
government agencies. Funding for preventive education and raising public understanding of the "ills" of drug dependence has been addressed.
Treatment Centers
The cornerstone of drug therapy delivery is "de-addiction"
centres. These centres may be established by voluntary organisations, state or federal
governments, or both in accordance with the NDPS Act.
Drug dependency services
are currently offered
by:
1. Government hospitals
that offer both inpatient and outpatient care, primarily in the detoxification phase. Official statistics
state that 122 government hospitals nationwide offer drug treatment programmes. In recent years, the federal
government declared that it will open "drug
treatment clinics" at several of these hospitals, providing opioid
substitutes for patients undergoing therapy.
2. The Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment (MOSJE) and state departments of social welfare award subsidies to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) so that the latter can operate integrated rehabilitation centres
with the goal of "making addicts drug free, crime free, and profitably working." In 2013–14,
346 of these NGO centres received
funding.
3. Private
psychiatric hospitals and nursing facilities licenced by the Mental Health Act
of 1987. These institutions provide a
variety of mental health therapies in addition to drug dependence therapy.
4. Private "de-addiction" facilities that run without
a licence or registration.
Although it
is legally required of the government to develop regulations governing the construction
of treatment centres, neither the federal government nor state governments have
done so. Because of this, there are already a great deal of unlicensed
"de-addicted" centres popping up to take advantage of drug users' and
their families' desperation. Patients receive "punishments" in place of
medical attention, which can involve extreme torment or even result in death. The
NDPS Rules for treatment facilities in Haryana and Punjab were implemented as a
result of a court intervention in 2009. These rules, among other things,
mandate that all drug rehabilitation and therapy centres apply for licences and
submit to inspection. The Rules categorically endorse treatment centres that admit
patients voluntarily and call for their closure. They also provide that centres
that operate without a licence or in where human rights are violated may face criminal
prosecution. Even after laws were implemented, drug users were still being
detained against their will, subjected to exploitation and other civil rights
breaches, and subjected to physical violence.
Diversion from prison to treatment
A drug-dependent individual found guilty of a modest drug offence may be
remanded to a treatment centre run or
approved by the government after the court has evaluated her or his background and health situation and
obtained consent, rather than being sentenced to prison. The provision of doctor's reports and an oath promising not to conduct
illicit activities again are prerequisites for receiving treatment. Upon completion of therapy, the offender
may be released on bond and the execution may be deferred
by the court. Very few, if
any, people have profited from this clause thus far. A primary
cause of this is the fact that a large number of persons are detained during trials, which often take a
long time to complete. As a result, the sentence is deducted from the time the defendant
has already served in jail when the conviction is announced. As a result, there is no reason
to send him or her to therapy as a substitute for the jail term, which has
effectively already been completed.
Admission for therapy and protection from prosecution
Individuals who are drug addicts and show a willingness to receive
treatment are exempt from prosecution, as long as the offence
they are accused
of is drug consumption or involves a small amount of narcotics. Resumption of criminal proceedings is possible if the treatment
plan is not finished. Given
that the provision is beneficial in nature, it should be read broadly rather
than narrowly. Courts have sought to
limit the scope of this protection, ruling that drug dependency must be
"proved by production of adequate proof by the person concerned" and that exemption
does not extend to individuals who use occasionally. Such choices unintentionally
subvert the statute's legislative goals, which are to promote
treatment seeking and prevent the criminalization of drug addicts. Since immunity is only awarded
for offences concerning a small quantity, which is frequently a topic of
controversy in court, the discussion over the precise definition of drug concentrations has further impeded the grant
of immunity. Moreover, it's unclear if going to therapy
counts as "completed" treatment. The NDPS Act's remedial measures
have not been given priority or implemented by courts in a meaningful way.
CONCLUSION
Increase access to psychiatric and narcotic medications required for
treating a variety of medical
conditions, while implementing appropriate measures to prevent illegal
diversion. Boost coordination across
government agencies, giving each state agency a clear mandate to create and implement
drug-related policies and practices. Engage with civil society organisations, such as drug user
representatives, academics, medical experts, and patient organisations with expertise in
drug-related issues, when formulating drug policies. Organise routine data collection on drug use,
addiction, and associated health issues like HIV and viral hepatitis prevalence among injecting drug
users. Rather of basing drug policy decisions on the unrealistic objective of creating a “drug-free” society, apply
harm reduction theories with the aim of minimising the negative effects of substances.
Bibliography
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_India#:~:text=Psychotropic%20
Substances%20Act-
3.The%20Prevention%20of%20Illicit%20Trafficking%20in%20Narcotic%20Drugs%20and%20Psychotropic,Psychotropic%20Substances%20Act%20of%2019
85
[1] Article 47 as per Constitution
Of India
[2] International Drug Policy Consortium(IDPC)
[3] IndianKanoon.org
[4] Section 21 of the NDPS ACT 1985
[5] Drug Controller
General Of Inida(DCGI)
Article Information
AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S DRUG POLICY AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND REGULATORY LANDSCAPE
Authors: NEHA MONDAL, DR SUPERNA VENAIK
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/05/10
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.