Introduction
India’s NDPS Act is part of the “war on drugs,” intended to reduce use, though critics argue it drives the trade underground and fuels organised crime. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)[1] was enacted to regulate and prohibit the production, possession, sale, and use of various narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances while ensuring India’s compliance with international drug control treaties. Trafficking is subject to severe penalties under the Act, including long prison terms. “For example, the number of arrests under the NDPS Act in India nearly doubled from 75,000 in 2019 to 133,000 in 2023,” yet the number of convictions remains low, raising questions about the effectiveness of enforcement-focused approaches.[2] This blog examines whether India’s prohibition-based framework under the NDPS Act effectively addresses crime and public health concerns and whether selected harm-reduction reforms, inspired by experiences in Portugal and Canada, could provide a more balanced approach in India. It argues that while complete legalisation may not presently be suitable for India, a calibrated approach that combines strict action against organised trafficking with stronger harm-reduction and treatment-oriented measures may provide a more effective balance between public health and criminal justice objectives.
Background
The NDPS Act is India’s primary narcotics control framework, imposing strict controls on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances while permitting limited licensed medical use. Courts have also clarified the Act’s scope, including the legal status of bhang under the NDPS framework.
Legislative Objectives and Policy Rationale of the NDPS Act
The NDPS Act was enacted in 1985 to combat drug trafficking, prevent substance abuse, and ensure compliance with international drug control conventions. It adopts a prohibition-based approach through strict penalties and extensive enforcement powers. Rising arrests and low conviction rates have raised questions about whether enforcement-focused strategies effectively achieve the Act’s objectives.
Constitutional Dimensions of Drug Policy
Drug policy also raises important constitutional questions. Article 21 of the Constitution of India[3] guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted by courts to include aspects of health and human dignity. These considerations remain central to debates on whether drug dependence should be addressed primarily through punishment or public-health interventions. Furthermore, the constitutional principle of proportionality requires that restrictions on liberty and criminal penalties remain proportionate to the harm caused. The criminalisation of drug users raises concerns regarding whether imprisonment is a proportionate response to substance dependence. If addiction is recognised as a health condition, excessive reliance on punitive sanctions may conflict with the broader understanding of dignity and health under Article 21.
Judicial Interpretation of the NDPS Act
Indian courts have played a significant role in interpreting and limiting the scope of the NDPS Act. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh,[4] the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of procedural safeguards during searches and seizures. Similarly, in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab,[5] the Court highlighted the need for fairness and impartiality in investigations under the Act. More recently, in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu,[6] the Supreme Court strengthened procedural protections by holding that confessional statements made to certain narcotics officers cannot automatically be treated as admissible evidence. These decisions demonstrate the judiciary’s effort to balance effective drug control with the protection of individual rights. By insisting upon fairness and due process, the Supreme Court has recognised that effective drug control cannot come at the cost of fundamental legal safeguards.
Sentencing and Enforcement Challenges
The NDPS Act is characterised by a stringent sentencing framework, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of prohibited substances. While supporters argue that severe penalties deter trafficking and organised crime, critics contend that rigid sentencing structures may not adequately distinguish between large-scale traffickers and individuals struggling with substance dependence. Enforcement challenges also remain significant, including low conviction rates, procedural irregularities, delays in investigation, and the burden placed on courts and correctional institutions. These concerns raise questions about whether the Act’s stringent penalties always satisfy the constitutional requirement of proportionality, particularly where individuals suffering from addiction are treated similarly to organised traffickers.
Impact on Crime Rates
Prohibition may create incentives for illicit markets that generate profits for organised criminal networks. Some scholars argue that strict prohibition policies may drive drug markets underground, increasing opportunities for organised criminal activity and making enforcement more difficult. Studies from North America suggest that legalisation may reduce arrests for certain drug-related offences. UNODC reports that cannabis regulation in the US and Canada reduced arrests for possession and allowed police to focus on major crimes.
The NDPS Act has led to rising arrests with few convictions, overburdening courts and overcrowding prisons. Studies of Portugal’s decriminalisation reforms report substantial reductions in drug-offence convictions, suggesting that alternative approaches may reduce pressure on the criminal justice system while maintaining public health objectives.
Effects on Public Health and Society
Critics argue that prohibition may have unintended public health consequences by discouraging individuals from seeking treatment and harm-reduction services. This may increase overdose mortality and disease transmission. Some commentators also contend that strict regulatory controls may sometimes limit access to certain medicines for legitimate medical and palliative-care purposes. Evidence from comparative studies suggests that harm-reduction measures can significantly reduce drug-related harms. Studies of Portugal’s reforms have reported reductions in overdose deaths, HIV transmission, and certain indicators of problematic drug use following the introduction of decriminalisation and treatment programmes.
Critics argue that prohibition-based approaches may not always prevent drug-related health harms, including overdoses and substance-related illnesses. In India, methadone and needle exchange programs exist but remain underdeveloped due to the NDPS Act’s punitive enforcement. Stigmatising drug users as criminals hinders social agencies from providing effective assistance.[7]
India’s Harm-Reduction and De-Addiction Measures
India has recognised the public health dimensions of substance dependence through initiatives such as opioid substitution therapy, needle-exchange programmes, de-addiction centres, and the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction.[8] However, implementation remains uneven across India.
Benefits and Challenges of Legalisation [9]
- Crime And Enforcement
Legalisation has been associated with fewer arrests for certain drug-related offences, allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes. However, concerns remain regarding impaired driving and other health risks.
- Taxation And Regulation
A regulated market may reduce illegal profits through taxation and quality controls. However, evidence from Canada suggests that legalisation may also be associated with increased cannabis-related hospitalisations.
- Youth And Society
Data from the United States and Canada suggest that adolescent drug use has not dramatically increased following certain reforms. Nevertheless, youth access remains a major policy concern. Consequently, any consideration of decriminalisation or legalisation in India would require strong safeguards, including minimum age restrictions, public awareness campaigns, educational programmes, and accessible counselling services. Protecting young people must remain a reform objective.
International precedents
Portugal saw a decline in HIV infections and overdose deaths after decriminalising all narcotics in 2001 and treating addiction as a health issue. Cannabis became legal in Canada in 2018, but there were strict rules around retail locations to protect minors. These experiences demonstrate both the benefits and regulatory challenges associated with drug policy reform.
Applicability to India
While Portugal and Canada provide useful comparative examples, differences in healthcare systems and socio-economic conditions limit direct comparison with India. Portugal’s success was supported by extensive investment in treatment and rehabilitation services, while Canada’s regulatory framework operates within a different institutional environment. Therefore, any reform in India would need to be adapted to local realities, balancing public-health objectives with concerns regarding trafficking, enforcement capacity, public safety, and social conditions.[10]
CONCLUSION
India’s prohibition-based framework under the NDPS Act has sought to reduce drug use and trafficking, but its effectiveness remains contested. Enforcement-heavy strategies may overburden the criminal justice system without successfully lowering drug consumption, as evidenced by rising arrests with low conviction rates. Experiences from Portugal and Canada suggest that harm-reduction-focused reforms may contribute to improved public health outcomes, reduced criminal justice burdens, and lower levels of prison overcrowding. However, legalisation also presents risks that require strong safeguards. Rather than choosing between absolute prohibition and complete legalisation, India may benefit from a calibrated reform model that combines targeted enforcement against trafficking with evidence-based public health interventions.
Author(s) Name: Gungun Sharma (Prestige Institute of Management and Research, School of Law, Deemed to be University Indore)
References:
[1] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
[2] Suresh Deepala, ‘Data: While the Number of Arrests Under the NDPS Act Increased in Recent Years, Convictions Remain Very Low’ (Factly, 10 March 2025) < https://factly.in/data-while-the-number-of-arrests-under-the-ndps-act-increased-in-recent-years-convictions-remain-very-low/> accessed 27 January 2026.
[3] Constitution of India, art 21.
[4] State of Punjab v Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172.
[5] Mohan Lal v State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627.
[6] Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.
[7] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2022 (UNODC 2022) < https://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html > accessed 27 January 2026.
[8] Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) (Government of India, 2018) < https://socialjustice.gov.in/schemes/42 > accessed 27 January 2026.
[9] Wayne Hall, Daniel Stjepanović, Danielle Dawson and Janni Leung, ‘The Implementation and Public Health Impacts of Cannabis Legalization in Canada: A Systematic Review’ (2023) 118 Addiction 2062.
[10] Caitlin E Hughes and Alex Stevens, ‘What Can We Learn from the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?’ (2010) 50(6) British Journal of Criminology 999.