Open Access Research Article
DISCOVERING NEW HORIZONS OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM TO TACKLE DRUG-RELATED CRIMES
Published Paper
Article Details
DISCOVERING NEW HORIZONS OF
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM TO
TACKLE DRUG-RELATED CRIMES
AUTHORED BY - APURVA T. BHILARE[1]
& DR. SALEEM M. SHAIKH[2]
Abstract
Drug Use is becoming rampant and is
an issue gravely affecting the youth of India. This paper delves into the
complexities of drug use. Nationally and internationally, prohibitive or
punitive strategies are adopted to deal with the issue of drug use and is
considered as criminal wrong. But in fact, it is a multi-faceted physiological
and psychological disorder requiring a healthcare-centric strategy.
Acknowledging the intrinsic link between the drug use and criminality, this
paper specifically addresses the offences of consumption and possession of
small quantity mentioned under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 and proposes alternative dispute resolution mechanism to deal with
them. The paper discusses various avenues for this integration which will lead
to reducing stigma, early redressals, successful diversion to treatment etc.
This paper advocates for prioritizing the health of the drug users over
criminalization by offering a more nuanced and effective solution to this
pressing societal issue.
Keywords: Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR),
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), substance use
disorder, drug use, possession
1. Introduction
The ideological utopia of the
‘drug-free society’ may seem to be a cherished aspiration of modern civilized
societies around the world. However, on the ground, this idea may be
antithetical to the public-health priorities and individual dignity let alone
sustainable development goals.
The dominant premise of the
international narcotic drug control regime revolves around prohibition and
punishment thus criminalizing all activities relating to narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances. However, the demand and consumption of drugs have been
ever increasing creating a breeding ground for criminal organizations to commit
a range of offences relating to drugs.
The addiction to drugs and the
commission of crime are closely related. Persons may start using drugs for
re-creation but some of them owing to their acute mental conditions and
socio-economic backgrounds may grow dependent on the drugs. There are certain
stages of drug use. When a person reaches the stage of problematic drug use, it
becomes compulsive for the user to keep up with the consumption; hence they
resort to the commission of crime to suffice their urges. Research has shown a
relation between the level of drug abuse and the specific type of crimes
committed. When such persons come in conflict with the criminal administration
system, the duration and punitive nature of laws relating to addiction may
directly affect the human rights of the persons who use drugs. Thus, barring
any aggressive offences, the persons who use drugs should be directed to
treatment rather than to lengthy trials and prisons.
Strategies adopted to control drugs
and drug consumption have put the drug users who might be suffering from mental
health issues in jeopardy of the criminal justice mechanism thus leading to a
catch-22 situation.
In such a situation strategized use
of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism will prove to be rights-based,
health-based, speedy, cost-effective solutions for dealing with the issue of
drug menace and crime. This research aims explore the relationship between drug
addiction and crime and evaluate the viability of the alternate dispute
resolution intervention in integrating the treatment in criminal justice and
developing an inclusive justice mechanism.
2. History of Drug Laws in India
The prohibitory drug laws somewhat
owe their origin to social and political upheaval happening in the American
society. With the rise of individualism and exploring and expanding horizons of
individual liberty, the consumption of drugs and living and carefree life became
a representative of the youth’s rebellion and way of challenging the
establishment. The lengths and breadths of this started to go beyond the
control of the then governments and political undercurrents pushed them to take
regressive measures to tackle this issue. President Nixon declared the
infamous, “war on drugs” in 1971 which escalated the size and pressure of the
federal drug control agencies.[3] Further,
owing to the media portrayals of the incidences of abuse and of persons who
consumed drugs fueled the drug hysteria making ‘drugs’ as the number one enemy
of the society ultimately demonizing the persons who used those drugs. Soon in
1981, Nancy Reagan, wife of President Ronald Reagan declared a highly
publicized, ‘zero tolerance’ strategy which carried the slogan ‘just say no’[4]
Three main international conventions
were enacted in light of this rising drug hysteria and to bring about
international cooperation and common penalization of the use of drugs. The 1961
UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs created a system for penalizing all the
activities conducted in relation to the narcotic drugs excepting the use for
medicinal and scientific purposes.[5] The 1971
UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances was enacted keeping in view the
diversification and introduction of new substances. This convention was passed
to enlist more than a hundred psychotropic substances and penalize activities
relating to them.[6] The 1988
Convention further obligated the signatories to criminalize the sale,
transport, distribution, consumption etc. by enacting relevant domestic laws.[7]
India had earlier opposed these
conventions and shown resistance to criminalizing drug use and related
activities relating to ethnically rooted plant-based drugs. However, the
convention gave India only a grace period of 25 years to make these substances
available for scientific and medical purposes.[8]
Finally, India succumbed to international pressure and enacted the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the 14th of November
1985.
This US-led war on drugs which
started off primarily as a racist propaganda against the African-American Black
Community and Hispanic population[9] dragged
other nations like India haphazardly into the punitive regime of drug laws.
Since then, these laws have resulted in a disproportionate number of arrests
and incarceration of drug users.
3. The Psychological Aspect of Drug Addiction
The NDPS Act, 1985 defines an
‘addict’ as “a person who has dependence on any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance”[10] but does
not define addiction. Addiction generally is used to refer to psychological and
physical dependence on anything like drugs, cigarettes, games, social media,
pornographic literature, gambling and so on. However, the use of drugs or
psychotropic substances and dependence on them has to be understood with a
detailed perspective. The persons who use drugs loosely referred to as
‘addicts’ in this Act, can be persons suffering from chronic brain disease.
Substance use disorder (SUD) is a treatable mental disorder that affects a
person’s brain and behavior, leading to their inability to control their use of
substances like legal or illegal drugs, alcohol, or medications.[11] Only
some of the persons who consume drugs can develop a compulsive urge of drug
use, loss of self-control, and other problematic behavior owing to their
vulnerabilities caused due to social, economic, psychological, environmental,
etc. factors.[12] Drug
addiction has well-recognized cognitive, behavioral, and physiological
characteristics that contribute to continued use of drugs despite the harmful
consequences.[13] Drug
dependence syndrome can be further characterized by the behavior resulting in
spending excessive amounts of time and money on drug-related activities.[14]
4. Relationship between Drug Use and Commission of
Crime
The drug dependence syndrome or
substance use disorder can lead a person to indulge in behavior that might be
problematic for them as well as others primarily to satisfy their
uncontrollable urge to consume the substance. As the drug affects the brain,
the decision-making capacity and ability to differentiate between right and
wrong is impaired in the persons who use drugs. A direct relation between the
levels of drug use, types of drugs used and the crimes committed by the persons
who use drugs have been identified in research.[15]
The persons who use drugs usually are
from the socio-economically vulnerable section of society, their sources of
income are meager thus, and therefore it becomes difficult to procure the
substance. Through research, it has been observed that most of the accused
under the NDPS Act, 1985 are students, rickshaw drivers, sweepers, watchmen,
daily wage workers, service persons, slum dwellers etc.[16]
That’s why they turn to illegal activities such as smuggling, drug dealing,
theft and prostitution. Thus, the cycle of poverty, addiction, and crime is
repeated.[17]
Researchers have drawn a co-relation
between drug use and income-generating offences like stealing money, theft,
robbery; violent criminal behaviors like domestic violence, intimate partner
violence, violence against parents or children; and self-harming violence like
suicide etc.[18] The
persons who use drugs sometimes become peddlers and small-time traffickers and
mobilize drugs to provide for their needs. However, it has to be carefully
understood that the persons may not intend to commit these crimes consciously
but due to altered perception owing to the drug use, they resort to criminal
path. The dependence on the substance fuels the motive and leads to the actual
commission of that offence. But substance use disorder is like any other
disease which disrupt healthy functioning of the body but which can be
preventable and treatable.[19]
5. Current Legislative and Judicial Landscape
of Drug-Related Crimes
Prior to the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), The Opium Act, 1857, the Opium
Act, 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 dealt with the provisions relating
to control of drugs. But, the provisions of these enactments were not sufficiently
deterrent, India was used as a transit route to traffic drugs to the Western
countries, India bore the obligations under the international conventions to
which it had become signatory, new drugs and psychotropic substances were
introduced in the markets which were not regulated by the earlier enactments.[20]
Therefore, with an objective to address the above issues, the NDPS Act was
enacted.
A fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence is ‘presumption of innocence of the accused’. However, Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 calls for reversal of this principle
and presumes the culpable state of mind of the accused and requires the accused
to prove the innocence beyond reasonable doubt.[21]
The Act jeopardizes the individuals struggling with substance use disorder and
indulgence in allied criminal activities, further laying an excessive burden to
prove their innocence to the state, which can be very difficult to achieve. As
prohibitive approach is predominantly adopted in the scheme of this Act,
getting bail for offences enumerated here is very difficult. Section 37 which
is titled as ‘offences to be cognizable and non-bailable’ begins with
non-obstante clause stating that all the offences under this Act shall be
cognizable. It further, does not completely deny bail but lays down heavy
conditions for granting of bail. Most of the offences committed under this act
are in relation to possession. According to the provisions of this Act, if the
accused fails to account satisfactorily for the possession, it is presumed that
he/she has committed an offence under this Act.[22]
As far as the offence of consumption
of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance as mentioned in section 27 is
concerned, the Act makes provisions for release for treatment under sections 39
and 64A. However, the above-mentioned provisions come in direct conflict with
these sections thus, making the release almost impossible. Also, the offenders
who commit offences of less serious nature, involving small quantities of drugs
and substances are usually the persons suffering from substance use disorder.
These offences attract large punishment and the Act does not make provision for
the treatment of offenders. Researcher has identified a list of such offences.
Table No.1: Provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 relating to the offences and their punishment
(except trafficking and offences involving intermediate and commercial
quantities)
|
Section
|
Title
|
Provision
|
Punishment
|
|
8c
|
Prohibition of certain operations
|
Certain activities relating to
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances prohibited including possession,
use, consumption, etc.
|
Mentioned in Chapter IV of NDPS
Act, 1985
|
|
25
|
Punishment for allowing premises
|
Knowingly permit to use the premise
to commit an offence under this act
|
Same as that of the offence
committed
|
|
28
|
Punishment for attempts to commit
offences
|
Attempt to commit any offence under
this act, cause to be committed
|
Same as the offence attempted
|
|
15
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to poppy straw
|
Possess; Use – Small quantity
|
rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, or
fine, or both
|
|
16
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to coca plant and coca leaves
|
Possess; Use – Any quantity
|
rigorous imprisonment of 10 years,
or fine, or both
|
|
17
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to prepared opium
|
Possess; Use – Small quantity
|
rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, or
fine, or both
|
|
18
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to opium poppy and opium
|
Possess; Use – Small quantity
|
rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, or
fine, or both
|
|
20
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to cannabis plant and cannabis
|
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant
(b) Possess – Small quantity
|
(a) rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which
may extend to one lakh rupees
(b) rigorous imprisonment of 1
year, or fine, or both
|
|
21
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to manufactured drugs and preparations
|
Possess; Use – Small quantity
|
rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, or
fine, or both
|
|
22
|
Punishment for contravention in
relation to psychotropic substances
|
Possess; Use – Small quantity
|
rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, or
fine, or both
|
Researcher opines that these offences
can be directed or diverted away from the criminal justice system, to the
alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
This would reduce the load of the judiciary and also help to adopt
health-based approach. Through ADR mechanism, identifying and directing the
persons suffering from substance use disorder to treatment can be facilitated
and timely follow-up of such persons can also become easy.
6. Need for ADR and Criminal Justice Administration in
Drug-Related Offences
Any crime is primarily considered as
a wrong against society, a violation of the moral code, economic loss of public
resources, harm caused to the public at large hence, the society denounces the
criminal acts as well as criminals by returning harsh punishments.
Although in recent years, in case of
certain types of offences, the restorative justice approach is adopted where
the focus is on repairing the victim’s harm and transforming the offender thus,
giving him or her a chance to restore their life. By adopting this approach, a
platform can be created where the victim and the offender can come face to face
and restore their earlier position. Especially in case of drug-related offences
such as consumption, personal use or even possession of small quantities where
the perpetrator is the victim himself, and the offences are of self-harming
nature, restorative justice approach becomes inevitable. Also, where offences
are committed to suffice the urge of consumption, the harm of the victim can be
restored and the offender can be directed towards treatment. Thus, the
restorative justice approach can be seen as “a means of promoting peaceful
expression of conflict, promoting tolerance and inclusion, building respect for
diversity and promoting good social practices.”[23]
It provides for a participative, consensus-based, collaborative redressal
mechanism rather than harsh adversarial systems. If implemented with the right
intention and efforts in cases of drug-related offences, it can promote
assuming responsibility for acts, accountability, dignity, assistance to the
victims if any, rehabilitation and social integration of the offenders, empathy
and so on. Adopting the restorative justice approach in case of drug-related
offences would mean an appropriate partnership and inter-agency cooperation
between the justice mechanism and the treatment centers, recovery support programs,
mental health treatment, employment support, and religious or spiritual support
programs.[24] Further
adopting an alternate dispute resolution mechanism becomes crucial for the
success of restorative justice approach.
In the research conducted in
Maharashtra state, it was observed that the average of 1766 NDPS cases per year
between 2010 and 2013 suddenly spiked by five times. From 2012 to 2014, the
number of cases jumped to 14622. Since then, crimes committed under the NDS
Act, 1985 consistently remained high in Maharashtra.[25]
This trend has been asserted by the government and many persons have been
convicted for possession for personal consumption of drugs. It is clear from
the following chart[26]:
Chart
No.1: Comparison between convictions for possession and trafficking
About 2.8% of Indians aged 10-75
years which can amount to 3.1 crore individuals are current users of any
cannabis product.[27] At the
national level, 0.66% of Indians aged 10 - 75 years need help with their cannabis
use (i.e., they use cannabis in a harmful or dependent pattern). In some
states, this proportion is considerably higher than the national average (e.g.,
Sikkim - 2.9%, Punjab - 2.2%). However, some states of the country have a
sizeable number of people who need help with their cannabis use pattern
(harmful use / dependence).[28] Also,
research conducted in some parts of the USA has shown that treatment reduced
illegal drug use by half and arrests by 64%.[29]
Thus, on one hand, the persons who
use drugs, who might be in need of treatment are vexed by the criminal justice
and their incarceration is asserted by the governments and the society as well,
and on the other hand, the punishments are not serving any deterrent purpose
and the vulnerable are jeopardized. In this light, ADR can be considered a
viable option.
7. ADR Methods That Can Be Used in Drug-Related
Offences
The drug-related crimes can be
understood as the crimes mentioned under the NDPS Act, 1985 relating to
consumption, personal use and possession of small quantities (except
trafficking and offences involving commercial quantities) where the perpetrator
is the victim and other criminal behavior in which the drug user indulges due
to the substance use disorder (except excessive violent crimes like murder,
rape etc.). Different ADR methods can be applied for victimless crimes and
crimes involving victims other than the perpetrator.
7.1 Diversion from criminal justice
Punishment and incarceration of drug
users have proved to be futile in curbing drug use.[30]
Offering treatment to the offenders whose criminal behaviour is directly
related to their drug use as an alternative to conviction or punishment makes
sense from the perspectives of both public safety and public health.[31]
Integrating treatment into the criminal justice system would provide treatment
to individuals who otherwise would not receive it, improving their medical
outcomes and decreasing their rates of re-incarceration.[32]
Failure to receive treatment increases the risk not only of relapse but also of
mortality from drug overdose and other causes.[33]
Owing to the socio-economic
vulnerability, social stigma, lack of legal representation and a plethora of
other factors, the treatment is not available to those in need. In a nationwide
and comprehensive survey conducted by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, it was observed that the proportion of persons who use drugs
admitted to a government de-addiction center (23%) or an NGO de-addiction center
(7%) is very small[34] also,
there are large number of persons who want to quit drug use yet do not have
access to treatment [35]-
Chart
No.2: Availability of Treatment for Drug Dependence
Thus, the coordination of the drug
abuse treatment and correctional planning and regular feedback of the
participant’s progress can encourage the participants as well as reduce the
load of criminal justice administration.[36]
The diversion strategy implies that
the public officials can direct the persons with drug use disorder to drug
treatment programs rather than bringing them to trials and getting them
convicted. Section 64A of the NDPS Act also provides for immunity from
punishment if a person volunteers for treatment. However, only those with
disorders need to be diverted to the treatment program and not everyone who
might have consumed it.
When a person is discovered to be in
possession of any drugs for non-medical personal use in Portugal, they are
referred to a local "Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Abuse,"
which is made up of one member from the legal system and two members from the
health or social services. Following a review of the offender's personal
circumstances, the commission assesses potential treatment, education, and
rehabilitation programs. This provides for an evidence-based, health-based and
cost-effective alternative to the trials.[37]
Thus, establishment of similar extra-judicial mechanism will help in diverging
the persons in need of treatment to rehabilitation centers rather than to
prisons thereby reducing the load of the judiciary and creating
individual-centric health-based justice system.
7.2 Plea Bargain
Plea bargain had not been a popular
method of criminal justice administration however, keeping in view the
increasing burden of cases, it was introduced in India through the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2005 with limited application. The option of plea bargain is
available to the offenders where the offence committed carries a punishment of
less than 7 years and the offence is not a socio-economic offence.[38] In India,
the offences relating to drugs are considered as socio-economic offences,
however, the nature of the offences mentioned above in Table No. 1 is overtly
self-harming offences, like private or personal wrongs. Thus, in such cases,
the option of plea bargaining can be made available to the alleged offender
wherein they can assume the responsibility for their wrongdoing and the courts
can dispose of the cases by providing compensation to the victims[39] and
directing the offenders to the treatment centres.
7.3 Negotiation
In drug-related offences where the
persons with substance use disorders have resorted to property offences,
domestic violence, wrongful behaviour at the workplace, etc. the negotiation
techniques can be resorted to. In many personal circumstances of disputes like
business, service, employment, marriage, divorce, or parenting where persons
who use illegal drugs are involved, negotiation can be used as an alternate
dispute resolution method.[40] This
method can help in resolving the dispute arising out of drug use by maintaining
the dignity of the parties and opening the doors for treatment.
7.4 Victim-Offender Mediation
Victim-Offender Mediation is a restorative
justice method where the drug user might have caused some harm or injury to the
victim but that behaviour is directly related to druguse. This is however a
method where the victims are willing to participate and mutually settle the
dispute. Under this model, the victim, offender, and support teams can meet
with a mediator to engage in a conversation about how the offender can repair
the harm he or she caused and develop a plan for moving forward with
reparations and preventing the offender from re-offending and resorting to
treatment.[41]
Implementation of mediation methods in criminal justice administration has
worked wonders in countries like USA, Canada and other European countries and
has proved to be a cost-effective and efficient method.[42]
India has always been conservative in applying ADR Mechanisms in criminal
justice system. But in case of offences like drug use and allied offences which
are closely related to the mental conditions of offender, use of ADR will prove
to be a tool for applying principles of restorative justice. Incorporation of
health care professionals in ADR, divergence to treatment and removal of stigma
because of disproportionate punishment will facilitate the delivery of holistic
justice to society as well as to the persons who use drugs.
8. Conclusion
A lot of people with drug use
disorder come in contact with the criminal justice system, and many of those
who are already convicted for various other offences have a history of drug
use. Hence it has become necessary to balance between public safety and public
health. Resorting to alternative dispute resolution mechanism as an alternative
to criminal justice administration and using it as a getaway to implement
treatment programmes for those with drug use disorders can prove to be a
cost-effective, health-based, efficient, inclusive, and restorative justice
practice.[43] ADR can
be used for facilitating effective interaction between the criminal justice
system and the health care system in cases relating to drug consumption,
possession of small quantity and other offences directly relating to drug use
disorder of the offender. Creating diversion opportunities to health care,
providing for victim-offender mediation, plea bargain, negotiation etc. can be
a way to synergize the health care system and criminal justice system. This
integration can lead to strengthening the mechanism of prevention and treatment
of substance abuse and develop inclusive, effective, accountable and
transparent justice institutions thereby leading to holistic and sustainable
development of the society.
[1] Ph.D. Research Scholar, M.C.E.
Society's A.K.K. New Law Academy, Pune; Assistant Professor, Department of Law,
Vishwakarma University, Pune
[2] Associate Professor of Law, M.C.E.
Society's A.K.K. New Law Academy, Pune
[3] ‘A History of the Drug War’ (Drug
Policy Alliance), available at https://drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war
(Last visited on 2 April 2023)
[4] Id.
[5] Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs, 1961 (adopted 30 March 1961, effective from 13 December 1964)
[6] Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, 1971 (adopted 21 February 1971, effective from 16 August 1976)
[7] Martin Jelsma, “The Development of
International Drug Control: Lessons Learned and Strategic
Challenges For The Future” Global Commission on
Drug Policies (2011), available at https://www.senado.gob.mx/comisiones/relext_orgint/ungass/docs/Analisisacademicos/Global_Com_Martin_Jelsma.pdf
(last visited on April 4, 2023)
[8] Shweta Sharma, Kapil Kumar and Gyanendra Singh, “An Overview on
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985” 1 Journal of Forensic
Sciences and Criminal Investigation (2017)
[9] Neha Singhal, Naveed Mahmood Ahmad,
“Case for Decriminalising Cannabis Use in India” Vidhi Centre for Legal
Policy, 20 August 2020, available at https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/case-for-decriminalising-cannabis-use-in-india/
(last visited on April 5, 2023)
[10] The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985) s. 2(i).
[11] “Substance Use and Co-Occurring
Mental Disorders”, National Institute of Mental Health, available at https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/substance-use-and-mental-health
(last visited on April 2, 2023)
[12] Chandler RK, Fletcher BW, Volkow
ND, “Treating Drug Abuse and Addiction in the Criminal Justice
System: Improving Public Health and Safety”. JAMA. 2009;
301(2):183–190, doi:10.1001/jama.2008.976
[13] National Institutes of Health, “Principles
of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations, a Research-based
Guide”, (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) pg 1
[14] United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime, World Health Organization, Treatment and care for people with drug
use disorders in contact with the criminal justice system (March 2018) pg
46
[15] Rafaiee R, Olyaee S, Sargolzaiee A,
“The relationship between the type of crime and drugs in addicted prisoners in
zahedan central prison” Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2013
Dec;2(3):139-40. doi: 10.5812/ijhrba.13977. Epub 2013 Dec 22. PMID: 24971293;
PMCID: PMC4070162. (last visited on April 5, 2023)
[16] Neha Singhal, Naveed Mahmood
Ahmad, “Criminalisation Leads To Exploitation: The Mumbai Story No One Knows
About” Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, September 8, 2020, available at https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/criminalisation-leads-to-exploitation-the-mumbai-story-no-one-knows-about/
(last visited on April 5, 2023)
[17] Supra note 13 at 4
[18] Tamera Martens, Wendy Manwarren
Generes, “How Drugs & Alcohol Can
Fuel Violent Behaviors” American Addiction Centres, December 2, 2022,
available at https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-and-violence (last visited on April 5, 2023)
[19] National Institute on Drug Abuse,
“What is drug addiction?” available at https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/drug-misuse-addiction
(last visited on August 14, 2023)
[20] The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985), Statement of Object and Reasons
[21] The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985) Section 35
[22] The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985) Section 54
[23] Trishla Dwivedi, “Restorative justice in relation to mediation”,
Time of India, Reader’s Blog, January 11 2022 available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/hail-to-feminism/restorative-justice-in-relation-to-mediation-40493/ (last visited on April 4, 2023)
[24] United Nations Office on Drugs And
Crime, Handbook On Restorative Justice Programmes,
Second Edition (March
2020) pg 23
[25] Supra note 14 at 5
[26] Id.
[27] Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Magnitude of substance use
in India (2019) pg 17
[28] Supra note 22 at 6.
[29]
Lurigio, A. J., “Drug Treatment
Availability and Effectiveness: Studies of the General and Criminal Justice
Populations” 27(4) Criminal Justice and Behavior 495–528 (2000) doi:10.1177/0093854800027004005
[30] Supra note 25 at 10
[31] Supra note 12 at 4
[32] Supra note 10 at 4
[33] Id.
[34] Supra note 22 at 6
[35] Id.
[36] Supra note 11 at 4
[37] Supra note 12 at 4
[38] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Act 2 of 1974), s. 265A
[39] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Act 2 of 1974), s. 265E
[40] Anushtha Anupriya, Anusha C Gudagur, “Importance of ADR in Criminal Justice” 2(1) International Journal Of Legal Science And Innovation pg
526-536 (2020)
[41] Kayla Welch, “Restorative Justice:
An Alternative Dispute Resolution Approach to Criminal Behavior” 2022(1) Journal
of Dispute Resolution (2022) available at https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2022/iss1/11
(last visited on April 5, 2023)
[42] Supra note 38 at 13
[43] Supra note 12 at 4
Article Information
DISCOVERING NEW HORIZONS OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM TO TACKLE DRUG-RELATED CRIMES
Authors: APURVA T. BHILARE, DR. SALEEM M. SHAIKH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/01/09
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.