Ankur Lal Advocate

+9192160 17007

[email protected]

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin

lawyer

Overview of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 represents a landmark in India’s legal framework to combat drug abuse and trafficking. This legislation consolidated existing drug laws into a single comprehensive Act, balancing the need to address drug abuse while allowing for legitimate medical and scientific use of controlled substances.   Origins and Purpose Passed by the Indian Parliament in 1985, the Act was designed to strengthen the country’s response to drug-related issues and to align with international anti-drug treaties. It revised earlier laws, imposing stricter controls and harsher penalties to tackle drug trafficking and misuse. The Act established key regulatory bodies like the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Consultative Committee to oversee and enforce drug policies. The Act aims to meet international drug control obligations and adhere to constitutional requirements to limit harmful intoxicants. It addresses a wide range of substances, including opium, morphine, heroin, cannabis, cocaine, and amphetamines, seeking to prevent both abuse and illicit trafficking.   Key Definitions and Terminology Understanding the Act requires familiarity with its key terms: – Narcotic Drugs: Substances with the potential for abuse or addiction, such as opium, morphine, and heroin. – Psychotropic Substances: Materials affecting mental processes, including LSD, MDMA, and methamphetamine. – Addict: A person dependent on narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. – Offender: A person violating the Act’s provisions, including illegal activities related to controlled substances. – Controlled Substances: Drugs regulated by the Central Government due to their abuse potential. – Essential Narcotic Drugs: Substances like codeine and morphine permitted for medical use. – Illicit Traffic: Unauthorized activities involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, such as smuggling.   Enforcement and Implementation The enforcement of the Narcotics Act involves various authorities:   – Central Government: Appoints the Narcotics Commissioner and other officers to manage drug policy and enforcement. – State Governments: Appoint officers to regulate and oversee drug-related activities within their jurisdictions, coordinating with the central authorities. – Additional Authorities: The Central Government can establish further bodies to support the implementation of the Act. Effective enforcement requires cooperation between central and state agencies and international partners to address the complex nature of drug trafficking.   Prohibitions and Regulations The Act enforces strict regulations on activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances: – Prohibitions: Includes cultivation, production, manufacture, possession, sale, and transport, except for regulated medical and scientific purposes. – Permitted Activities: Regulated by the Central Government for medical treatment, research, and industrial purposes, such as the controlled cultivation of cannabis. – Additional Prohibitions: Includes allowing premises for illegal activities, financing or abetting such activities, and harboring individuals involved in them.   Penalties and Punishments Violations of the Act are met with severe penalties: – Imprisonment: Ranges from 6 months to 20 years, depending on the offence. Repeat offenders may face up to 30 years in prison. – Fines: Can range from Rs 20,000 for possession to Rs 2 lakh for commercial trafficking. The Act also permits asset seizure related to drug offences. – Treatment: Convicts may be required to undergo de-addiction treatment at government facilities, aimed at rehabilitation and reducing recidivism.   Powers of Search, Seizure, and Arrest The Act grants significant powers to law enforcement: – Search: Authorized officers can search premises and vehicles suspected of housing illicit drugs at any time. – Seizure: Includes confiscating drugs, manufacturing equipment, and related materials. Seized items must be reported to the magistrate and secured by law enforcement. – Arrest: Officers can arrest suspects without a warrant and must inform them of the grounds for their arrest, presenting them before a magistrate within 24 hours.   Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Awareness The Act emphasizes treatment and rehabilitation: – Rehabilitation Centers: Established to provide medical and psychological support to addicts. – Immunity from Prosecution: Addicts seeking treatment at recognized centers can avoid legal consequences. – Awareness Campaigns: Conducted by both government and non-governmental organizations to educate the public and reduce drug abuse. Coordination with International Bodies India collaborates with international organizations to enhance drug control: – Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961: Limits drug use to medical and scientific purposes, guiding national and international cooperation. – Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971: Controls psychotropic substances similarly. – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC): Supports India with legal assistance, data collection, and infrastructure improvements to curb drug trafficking.   Impact and Evolution The Narcotics Act has significantly influenced drug policy in India: – Establishment of NCB: Oversees drug law enforcement, tracking trends and coordinating with state and international agencies. – Amendments: The Act has been revised to address evolving drug threats, including expanding definitions of illicit trafficking and setting up special courts. – Criticism and Challenges: Some argue that strict penalties lead to prison overcrowding and disproportionately affect minor offenders.   Conclusion The Narcotics Act of 1985 marked a decisive step in India’s fight against drug abuse and trafficking. Despite ongoing debates about its impact and effectiveness, the Act has played a crucial role in shaping the country’s approach to drug control. By combining stringent regulation with efforts in treatment and international cooperation, the Act aims to mitigate the harm caused by narcotics and safeguard public health.

Constitutionality Of The Electoral Bonds

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

The Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018, was introduced by the Ministry of Finance on January 02, 2018, provided for donations to political parties through issuance of electoral bonds using machinery of the State Bank of India (“SBI”). An electoral bond is like a promissory note. It is a bearer instrument payable to the bearer on demand. Unlike a promissory note, which contains the details of the payer and payee, an electoral bond has no information on the parties in the transaction at all, providing complete anonymity and confidentiality to the parties. It has inserted a striking feature that it would not carry the name or any other information of the donor, thereby making the donation anonymous. It could be encashed by an eligible political party through a bank account with an authorised bank. SBI had been authorised to issue and encash bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme and there was no limit to the number of bonds that a person or company could purchase. However, the constitutionality of the said scheme was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at multiple instances but it was finally put on record before the 5 Judge constitutional bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. challenging the amendments in the Finance Act, 2017, which opened the path for the Electoral Bond Scheme, on the grounds that the anonymity associated with the issuance of electoral bonds weakens the transparency in political funding and invades upon the voter’s right to information. However, a political party eligible to run campaigns must register under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to receive electoral bonds. It will have a life of only 15 days, during which it can be used to make donations to political parties. The two crucial questions before the hon’ble constitutional bench was; a) whether the non- disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of the Representation of People Act, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act and Section 13A (b) of the Income Tax Act were violative of the Right to Information of citizens under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India; and b) whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182 (1) of the Companies Act infringes the principle of free and fair elections and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The constitution bench unanimously held that the said scheme is unconstitutional and violative of the citizens right to information under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Bench noted that despite constitutional measures, there is great political inequality in India. This inequality is driven by money. As a result, people with deep pockets influenced political decisions. “Economic inequality”, the Chief Justice of India wrote, “leads to differing levels of political engagement because of the deep association between money and politics.” It gives large donors a “seat at the table” and allows them to influence policy. The voter, therefore, must have access to information to assess whether “a correlation between policy making and financial contributions exists”. The Bench relied on the proportionality test laid down in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016). In that case, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Court had held that a measure restricting a fundamental right must have a “legitimate goal”, it must be a “suitable means” of reaching that goal, it must create the least amount of restriction as possible, and must be balanced and not have “a disproportionate impact” on the right holder. The Scheme was proposed as a tool to curb black money. The Court held that “the purpose of curbing black money is not traceable to any of the grounds in Article 19(2),” which lists reasonable restrictions to Article 19. Even if it were to accept that curbing black money was a legitimate goal, the Court said, the Scheme would have to pass the second test of being a “suitable means” to achieve that goal. The Scheme would pass the test even if it was “one of the many methods” to achieve the goal or “only partially gives effect to the purpose.” Applying the “double proportionality standards”, the court said that the clause was unconstitutional as it did not balance the conflicting right to information of voters with contributors’ right to privacy regarding their political affiliations. The Ld. Chief Justice of India further held that the “unlimited contribution by companies to political parties is antithetical to free and fair elections because it allows certain persons/companies to wield their clout and resources to influence policy making.” Giving companies this “unrestrained influence” violates the value of “one person, one vote”. The Supreme Court ordered banks to forthwith stop issuing Electoral Bonds and that the State Bank of India (SBI) shall furnish the details of Electoral Bonds encashed by the political parties. The court said that SBI should submit the details to the Election Commission of India and ECI shall publish these details on the website. Hence, the scheme of 2018 allowing anonymous electoral bonds were held unconstitutional, by the Hon’ble High Court and The CJI while reading out his judgement said that the Supreme Court holds that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of Right to Information and Article 19(1)(a) and issuance of fresh bond was prohibited. The Supreme Court said that information about corporate contributors through Electoral Bonds must be disclosed as the donations by companies are purely for quid pro quo purposes. The court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said infringement of the Right to Information is not justified for the purpose of curbing black money.