Saddled with two of the World's largest cartels of illicit opium production, the Golden Crescent in North-West and the Golden Triangle in the North-East, with approximately four million psychotropic drug users[1], India's legal system faces a Herculean task.
India's commitment on prohibition of intoxicating drinks & drugs is enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution, mandating the State to endeavour “… to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health”. As regards Union/State control, “drugs and poisons” find mention in Entry 19 of the Concurrent List (subject to Entry 59 of List-1 in regards to opium), while “Cultivation, manufacture, and sale for export, of opium” is covered by Entry 59 of the Union List, but excise duty and countervailing duties on “opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics” manufactured/produced is with the States under Entry 51 of the State List. To this extent, State Governments and the Union Government have joint responsibilities in prevention and regulation of illicit cultivation, manufacturing, processing, trading etc. of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances.
After India's tryst with the erstwhile Opium Acts of 1857 & 1878, the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 etc., India's current anti narcotic & psychotropic substances legal regime includes the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act, 1985”), Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and other related laws (e.g. Indian Forest Act, 1972), rules and policy frameworks, mainly the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, National Policy on Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 2012.
Despite a comprehensive legal regime, India still continues to be a fertile destination and route for narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances, evident from the following:
A. While the number of chronic substance-dependent individuals in India were 2.3 million (cannabis) and 0.5 million (opiates) in 2004[2], psychotropic drug users totalled 4 million during 2017-2020[3]. In fact, in 2009, the United Nations highlighted India as one of the major sources (5%) of cannabis resin, while Central Asia accounted for another 5%[4].
B. Even in 2018, International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)[5] classified India as one of the major hubs for illicit drug trade, with the North-Western and North-Eastern parts of India increasingly becoming transit routes.
C. Opioid consumption in India in 2019 was at 2.06%, while the corresponding global figure stood at 0.70% and Asia accounted for 0.46%[6]. The number of people injecting drugs stood at 100113 in Uttar Pradesh, 34344 in Manipur, 33888 in Nagaland, 55358 in Haryana, 88165 in Punjab, 86909 in Delhi, while the all India figure was 854296. Still, as on December, 2022[7], the conviction rates under the NDPS Act, 1985 were relatively low in some states like Assam (7.5%), Manipur (18.5%), Tripura (10.5%), West Bengal (2.9%) etc.
D. There has been continuous seizure of substantial narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances during 2018-2023, mostly in border States like the North Eastern States, Gujarat, Rajasthan etc., which only demonstrated sizable poppy cultivation[8].
E. Synthetic and semi-synthetic drugs are being manufactured in clandestine laboratories in India and there has been a frightening diversion of pharmaceutical preparations containing ephedrine from domestic distribution channels and extraction of ephedrine therefrom for illicit manufacture of Amphetamine-type Stimulants (“ATS”) for illicit consumption[9].
F. There have been various instances of poppy and narcotic drugs plantations in designated Protected Forests (declared under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927) and Reserved Forest areas (declared under Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1972), evident from credible media reports.
G. There has been an alarming number of cases registered under the NDPS Act,
1985, sizable cultivation of poppy in different states of India– during the time frame of 2018-2023[10].
In the context of comparative legal systems and policy frameworks across jurisdictions, some of the legal and policy shortcomings of the Indian legal system can be listed as under:
1. As regards Protected Forests and Reserved Forests, a Government or a Government agency comes under “the owner or occupier or having the control or use of” within the meaning of Sections 25 and 46 of the NDPS Act, 1985. However, India's legal framework lacks clarity on accountability of concerned Government official(s) in case of transgression of any Reserved Forest or Protected Forest for purposes of illicit narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances business. Sections 25 and 46 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are reproduced as under:
“25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.— Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.”
“46. Duty of land holder to give information of illegal cultivation.—Every holder of land shall give immediate information to any officer of the Police or of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 of all the opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant which may be illegally cultivated within his land and every such holder of land who knowingly neglects to give such information, shall be liable to punishment.”
Though departmental disciplinary proceedings can be taken up against erring Government officials in charge of such a transgressed Protected/ Reserved Forest, India's legal framework does not allow concerned Government official(s) of transgressed Protected/ Reserved Forests to be criminally prosecuted, as if such officials were directly/indirectly indulging in illicit narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances trade. Such a legal regime will address suspected instances of criminal-Government official nexus in banned drugs & substances trade, especially in North-East India.
2. The problem is further compounded by misuse of unclassified forests for illicit narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances business. Unclassified forests can be of two types – (i) Unoccupied Forests and (ii) Occupied Forests under community ownership as per local customs & traditions in states like Manipur, where vast tracks of land in remote and almost inaccessible unclassified forests are under regulatory control of Tribal Chiefs, with many such forests used for poppy cultivation. Just as in the case of Protected/Reserved Forests, India's legal framework does not provide for criminal culpability of a concerned Government official of a transgressed unoccupied unclassified forest, as if the concerned forest official had directly/indirectly indulged in illegal narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substance business.
3. As regards occupied unclassified forests under tribal or local chiefs in states like Manipur (where rampant poppy cultivation has been reported), India's existing legal framework leaves a serious grey area qua the definition of persons “being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of” under Section 26 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and definition of “holder of land” within the meaning of Section 46. By way of illustration, land ownership in occupied unclassified forest areas of Manipur (other than Reserved & Protected Forests) is not governed by the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1961 and such forests are community- owned under different Tribal Chiefs, locally known as Khullakpas or Khul-Ningthous. Even though the Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs' Rights) Act, 1967 allows the State to take away land regulatory rights of Tribal Chiefs, the same has not been done till date. Consequently, most unclassified forests of Manipur are directly or indirectly regulated by the different Tribal Chiefs, where vast poppy plantation has been reported[11]. The difficulty is that in case of discovery of any poppy plantation in such an occupied unclassified forest area, concerned Tribal Chiefs are most often either untraceable or are in denial of control or occupation (direct or indirect), compounded by law enforcement agencies' unfamiliarity with the hilly and remote terrains.
Manipur aside, land in rural areas in North-East India in general and tribal areas in particular are 'largely owned by the community and the incidence of landlessness is negligible'.[12] Given such a position, holding a village headman accountable for purposes of the NDPS Act, 1985 is possible only when there is a legal/judicial clarification on “holder of land” or “owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance” (otherwise undefined in the NDPS Act, 1985).
4. Illegal poppy plantation usually happens in remotest of regions[13] and this could perhaps be a challenge for law enforcement agencies. The same is true not only in North-Eastern states but also in a mainland Indian state like Jharkhand[14]. In this regard, a comprehensive policy framework needs to be issued by the Central Government as well as State Governments to effectively monitor poppy cultivation in remote areas and extend the benefits of “Alternative Livelihood Programs” under India's National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances, 2012 to the poppy plantation dependent areas across the board.
5. “Alternative Development Programs” under India's National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances, 2012 are restricted to only traditionally illicit narcotic drugs cultivating communities and the same do not allow the Government to extend benefits thereof to all illicit narcotic planters across the board. In this connection, relevant part of India's “National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances”, 2012 is reproduced below:
“29. Alternative development is a method of weaning away farmers who have been traditionally cultivating opium poppy illegally and their livelihood depends entirely on such cultivation. In such places, mere enforcement and crop destruction will not work. Farmers should be trained and helped to develop alternative means of livelihood. In some countries of the Golden Triangle such as Laos and Thailand, alternative development programmes have been highly successful. However, alternative development programmes require large infusion of funds as the entire sustenance of the local population depends on it. Secondly, it involves changing the lifestyle of the local population and hence takes a fairly long time. Alternative development programmes to have effect and will require continuous funding for over such a long period.
The two key pre-requisites to justify an alternative development programme are (i) the farmers must be dependent on the illicit cultivation for their survival; and (ii) it must have been their traditional practice and the farmers do not know any other way of survival. If these two aspects are not considered, alternative development programmes can be counter-productive with the government rewarding regions where farmers started illegal profits. This, in turn, can be incentive to other regions and communities and their leaders to start illegal cultivation so as to get the status of 'status of illegal cultivation region' so as to get more funds to their region”. (Emphasis Added)
Having laid the above policy framework, the Policy, inter-alia, makes the following recommendations:
“31.(b). If there are pockets where illegal cultivation has been a long tradition and the survival of the local population depends entirely on it, such areas will be identified through mutual consultations between the Central Government (Department of Revenue), the NCB and concerned State Governments after a careful study.
(c). Once the areas have been identified in a State as in (b) above, no new areas will be added to the list as new areas cannot suddenly become traditional illegal cultivating areas.
(d). Alternative development programmes may be taken up in the areas identified as in (b) above after due consideration and once the programme is commenced in an area, it will be continued till the local population is completely weaned away from illegal cultivation.
(e). Any alternative development programme will be coordinated by the NCB.”
Even India's “Revised guidelines for extension of the Scheme Assistance to States and UTs for Narcotics Control for another three (03) years from 2017-18 to 2019-20 for availing assistance for strengthening their enforcement capabilities in combating illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance” require States & Union Territories to implement “Alternative Development Programmes”; relevant part of which is reproduced below:
“9. Assistance will also be provided for special project falling within the mandate of NCB. The special projects would be those relating to non-enforcement activities. An example would be alternative development programmes in states, which have perennial problem of illicit cultivation. NCB would provide assistance for cultivation of agricultural products like cash crop, fruit crops and as such similar ventures which shall motivate cultivators to shift from illicit cultivation to other activities. Such proposals shall be mooted by the State Governments. As a National Nodal Agency, NCB shall encourage and support such programmes/activities which shall help in supply reduction.”
The above policy frameworks on “Alternative Development Programme”, however, have two major issues:
a. The current “Alternative Development Programmes” are restrictive and benefits thereof may not be available to all poppy cultivators, especially in remote areas of the country. There are antecedents of poppy cultivation having been substantially curtailed through introduction of alternative crops even in remotest of areas, especially in South Asia. Instead of a restrictive policy, the Government should consider going beyond “pockets where illegal cultivation has been a long tradition”.
b. Even within the restricted policy framework on “Alternative Development Programmes”, nothing much has been seemingly done by the Government of India and State Governments. It is high time for the Government to go beyond the restricted “Alternative Development Programme” as conceptualized by the Central Government, by even providing incentives for seizure of drugs, forced eradication drives, engagement with civil society bodies and community members through appropriate legal and policy changes and emulate instances of successful reduction of opium cultivation by countries like Thailand, Afghanistan, Laos etc.
6. India needs to go for stricter provisions for arresting the ever-increasing menace of Synthetic and semi- Synthetic drugs, which has assumed diabolic forms of lifestyle and party drugs, seriousness of which is duly acknowledged in India's National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 2012:
“42. Synthetic and semi-synthetic drugs are illicitly manufactured in clandestine laboratories (commonly known as clan labs) the world over and India is no exception. However, the type of clans and types of drugs that they manufacture vary from place to place. Traditionally, clandestine laboratories in India are of two kinds – small, makes-shift manufacturing facilities which process opium into heroin and large industrial scale facilities which manufacture methaqualone.”
“45. Diversion of licit pharmaceuticals containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for abuse has been a significant problem in India. Preparations containing drugs such as codeine, buprenorphine, diazepam and alprazolam are commonly abused”.
“47…… As precursors are difficult to produce, illicit drug manufacturers usually obtain them by diverting from licit production and trade of precursors. Countries with large chemical and pharmaceutical industries like India are natural targets for traffickers of precursors.” (Emphasis Added)
India's policy framework needs to be re-calibrated, inter alia, by going for a stricter criminal liabilities for pharmaceutical companies in case of diversion of preparations containing ephedrine from domestic distribution channels and extraction of ephedrine there-from for ATS.
7. India's legal system is falling short of the advancement of technology for illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and narcotic substances. For example, there is a huge increase in use of dark web and cryptocurrency such as bitcoin by drug peddlers and buyers. Even drones have become tools not only for war or espionage or surveys, but also for shipment of drugs across borders. Such an issue has been duly recognized by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CRM-M-20005 of 2025 (Robert Masih Vs. State of Punjab) in its Order of September 22, 2025, wherein it has been observed that there “is steady increase in cross border smuggling of illicit drugs through drones these days”.
8. India's narcotic drugs policy needs streamlining of data management system on relevant strains of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances business like number of Controlled Delivery operations with countries bordering India's border states, details of implementation of Alternative Development Programmes, diversion of narcotic and psychotropic synthetic and semi-synthetic substances from their licit sources with specific action taken reports, abuse of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in educational institutions, food joints, prisons etc.
The case in point is that though Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) were reported to be widely consumed in India, there was no official data on consumers of such illegal substances[15]. Moreover, though the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Ministry of Home Affairs, has reportedly identified top 100 drug traffickers/kingpins and has initiated legal action[16], neither information on the identities of the top 100 drug traffickers/kingpins in India nor any detail of any concrete legal action is available in public domain.
Needless to say, once all the relevant facts & figures are in place, it would be possible to come up with mitigation measure for addressing the shortcomings of national schemes like the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR), Nasha-Mukh Bharat Abhiyaan and come up with new schemes for tackling challenging modern means of illegal trafficking of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances through drones, dark webs etc..
9. Given the severity of the issue, India should go for a harsher punishment regime. It is a matter of fact that India's punishment regime for such offences is not as harsh as those in countries like Singapore, Malaysia, China, Iran, Indonesia etc. Unlike many countries which provide for death penalties even for first- time offenders, Section 31A of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides for death penalty as an optional punishment for repeat offenders and that too only when such repeat offenders have been caught with scheduled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances above specified quantities. India certainly needs a rethink on its penal provisions, if its war on drugs is to be taken seriously.
Author is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Views Are Personal
References:
Revised guidelines for extension of the Scheme 'Assistance to States and UTs for Narcotics Control for another three (03) years from 2017-18 to 2019-20' issued by the Government of India.
2 Joint National Survey Report of 2004 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (“UNODC”) and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India. ↑
Govt. of India's “Revised guidelines for extension of the Scheme Assistance to States and UTs for Narcotics Control for another three (03) years from 2017-18 to 2019-20 for availing assistance for strengthening their enforcement capabilities in combating illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance. ↑
The World Drug Report, 2009 published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ↑
2018 annual report of the United Nations-backed International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) ↑
“Magnitude of Substance Use in India” released on May 14, 2019 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India ↑
“The details of cases registered (CR) and Conviction Rate (CRV) under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act for the year 2017-2021” shared by Shri Nityanan Rai, then Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India in reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha on 14.12.2022. ↑
“The Month-Wise and state-wise details of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized by all India Law Enforcement agencies from 1st January, 2018 to 31st May, 2023”, shared on August 8, 2023 by Shri Nityanand Rai, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India in reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha. ↑
India's National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 2012 ↑
Statement of Shri Nityanand Rai, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India on August 8, 2023 in the Lok Sabha. ↑
A report on “Mass Destruction of Poppy Cultivation intensifies” published on January 22, 2023 in Imphal Times, Manipur. ↑
Land, Agriculture and Livelihood of Scheduled Tribes in North-East India” (2017) by Mr. Reimeingam Marchang, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Karnataka. ↑
United Nations Report on “Opium poppy cultivation and sustainable development in Shan State, Myanmar”, 2019 ↑
A report in the Hindustan Times, Ranchi on May 4, 2017 ↑
World Drugs Report, 2009 ↑
Statement on July 27, 2021 by Shri Mansukh Mandaviya, the then Minister in the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers in the Lok Sabha ↑