Draconian Provisions Of NDPS Act Misused: Calcutta HC Orders Mandatory Videography Of Recovery Procedure .
Draconian Provisions of the NDPS Act and Their Misuse
1. Background on NDPS Act
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is a special law enacted to control and regulate operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The Act contains stringent provisions relating to search, seizure, bail, and punishment.
It is often described as “draconian” because of its harsh punishments, stringent procedural safeguards, and strict bail conditions.
Due to the severity of penalties (including death penalty for repeat offences), the Act is a powerful tool to combat drug trafficking but has also been prone to misuse by enforcement agencies.
2. Issues of Misuse
Law enforcement agencies have sometimes been accused of fabricating or planting evidence, falsifying recovery documents, and wrongful arrests under the NDPS Act.
Cases of false implication, harassment of innocent persons, and violation of due process have been reported.
Because of the stringent nature of the Act, accused persons find it difficult to get bail or defend themselves, leading to potential abuse of power.
3. Judicial Concern Over Misuse
Courts across India have expressed concern about misuse and stressed the need for strict compliance with procedure and safeguards.
They have emphasized that law enforcement officers must adhere to procedural safeguards to prevent fabrication and planting of evidence.
4. Calcutta High Court’s Landmark Order on Videography
The Calcutta High Court recognized the potential for abuse and issued directions making it mandatory to videograph the entire recovery and seizure process under the NDPS Act.
The order aims to bring transparency, accountability, and fairness in enforcement procedures.
Videography acts as objective evidence to verify whether proper procedure was followed and whether the recovered substances were seized legitimately.
5. Key Judgment
Calcutta High Court in Anwar Hussain @ Anwar Ali v. State of West Bengal (2021)
The Court noted that NDPS cases involve serious consequences and potential deprivation of liberty.
Observed that videography of recovery is essential to prevent false cases and protect rights of accused.
Directed all law enforcement agencies to videograph the entire search, seizure, and recovery procedure.
Held that failure to videograph would raise a presumption of mala fide conduct and can lead to quashing of the proceedings.
Emphasized that the measure will act as a check against misuse and ensure compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates procedure during search and seizure.
6. Legal and Procedural Significance
Section 50 of NDPS Act prescribes safeguards during search and seizure, including:
Informing the person being searched of the grounds for search.
Conducting the search in presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or two witnesses.
Making a full inventory and obtaining signatures.
The Court’s order for mandatory videography enhances these safeguards by providing audiovisual evidence of compliance.
Videography discourages police misconduct and provides courts with reliable material to verify facts.
7. Other Relevant Judicial Observations
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Samujh (2003): Stressed strict compliance with procedural safeguards under NDPS.
Delhi High Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Union of India (2017): Recommended video recording of search and seizure to prevent false cases.
Various High Courts have echoed the need for transparent enforcement practices to avoid wrongful arrests and violations.
8. Impact of the Calcutta HC Order
The mandatory videography rule has:
Reduced instances of fabricated recoveries.
Improved accountability of investigating officers.
Helped courts in determining the veracity of recovery claims.
Served as a model for other jurisdictions to implement similar safeguards.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| NDPS Act | Stringent law to control narcotics; contains harsh penalties |
| Misuse | Allegations of false cases, planting evidence, harassment |
| Judicial Concern | Courts stress adherence to procedure and protection of rights |
| Calcutta HC Order (2021) | Mandatory videography of recovery and seizure procedure |
| Purpose | Transparency, accountability, prevention of false implication |
| Legal Basis | Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act; safeguard against misuse |
| Consequences of non-compliance | Presumption of mala fide; possible quashing of case |
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s directive for mandatory videography of the recovery process under the NDPS Act is a significant judicial measure to curb the misuse of draconian provisions. It promotes transparency, safeguards the fundamental rights of the accused, and ensures the integrity of law enforcement operations in narcotics cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments