The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
📘 Background
India enacted the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) to control the production, possession, sale, transport, and use of narcotic drugs.
However, drug trafficking continued as a major threat to society and national security. The Government felt that stricter preventive measures were required, not just punishment after crime.
To deal with this, Parliament passed the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
This Act empowers the Government to detain persons involved in drug trafficking to prevent them from engaging in such activities in the future.
📜 Objectives of the Act
To prevent illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
To authorize preventive detention of persons suspected of engaging in drug trafficking.
To strengthen enforcement of the NDPS Act, 1985 by cutting down organized trafficking networks.
To protect society from the harmful effects of drugs by curbing smuggling and illegal trade.
📌 Main Provisions of the Act, 1988
1. Preventive Detention Power
Central Government or State Government can detain a person if satisfied that:
He is engaged or likely to engage in illicit traffic of drugs.
Detention is necessary to prevent such activities.
2. Period of Detention
Initially: up to 1 year.
Can be extended up to 2 years, if Advisory Board approves.
3. Advisory Board
Every detention case must be referred to an Advisory Board of Judges (High Court).
If the Board opines that detention is justified, it can be confirmed.
If not, the person must be released.
4. Rights of the Detained Person
Detenu must be informed of grounds of detention (except when it is against public interest).
Detenu can make a representation against detention before the Advisory Board.
5. Definition of “Illicit Traffic”
Cultivation, production, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, concealment, or distribution of drugs in violation of NDPS Act.
Financing or abetting drug trafficking.
Harbouring drug offenders.
6. Bar on Judicial Review
Courts cannot interfere with subjective satisfaction of the Government in detaining a person.
However, detention orders can be challenged on grounds of mala fide intention, delay, or violation of fundamental rights.
⚖️ Case Law References
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India (1992 AIR SC 2260)
Supreme Court held that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive.
If a person is already in custody, preventive detention order can still be passed if there is real possibility of his release and re-engagement in drug trafficking.
Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) 20 SCC 609
The Court upheld preventive detention under PITNDPS Act, stating that drug trafficking is a menace to public order and national security, justifying preventive detention even if NDPS Act already provides punishment.
Kamarunnisa v. Union of India (1991 AIR SC 1640)
The Court emphasized that detention orders must be based on clear material showing likelihood of drug trafficking.
Vague or irrelevant grounds cannot justify detention.
A. K. Roy v. Union of India (1982 AIR SC 710) – though related to preventive detention under another law, principles were applied here.
Preventive detention must balance individual liberty (Article 21) with state security.
Safeguards like Advisory Board review are essential.
📖 Significance of the Act
Strengthened India’s fight against drug trafficking and organized crime.
Ensured that habitual traffickers can be detained preventively even if no fresh crime has been committed.
Act was in line with international conventions on narcotics control (India is a signatory to UN Conventions).
Balances between fundamental rights and societal interest in preventing drug abuse.
✅ In short:
The PITNDPS Act, 1988 is a preventive detention law designed to stop drug traffickers before they commit further crimes. It allows detention up to 2 years, subject to review by an Advisory Board of judges. Courts have upheld its validity, stressing that while personal liberty is important, preventing drug trafficking is a matter of national interest.
Would you like me to also prepare a comparison between NDPS Act, 1985 and PITNDPS
RELATED Blog
0 comments