Set up SOP for addicts’ detox, HC directs Punjab, Haryana, UT

Section 27 of the NDPS Act penalises drug consumers but Section 64-A gives immunity if addicts undergo deaddiction treatment. The court notes that both sections without a standard operating procedure will remain ineffective, defeating the purpose of statutory provisions for addicts’ detoxification.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the chief secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, and adviser to the UT administration to establish and implement a standard operating procedure (SOP) to facilitate the detoxification of drug addicts.

The Punjab and Haryana high court rules that if an addict and to treatment, a trial judge may send him to a recognised de-addiction centre. Upon completion of the treatment, the trial judge may grant him immunity from prosecution as per Section 64-A of the NDPS Act, based on an application by the public prosecutor.

The division bench presided over by justice Sureshwar Thakur and justice Sudeepti Sharma said that if an accused is confirmed to be a drug addict and consents to treatment, a trial judge may send him to a recognised de-addiction centre. Upon completion of the treatment, the trial judge may grant immunity from prosecution as per Section 64-A of the NDPS Act, based on an application by the public prosecutor, it added.

It noted that Section 27 of the NDPS Act penalises consumers of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances with rigorous imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹10,000, or both. “But Section 64-A of the Act provides immunity from prosecution to addicts voluntarily undergoing treatment at government-recognised de-addiction centres. There is a need to align Section 27 with Section 64-A to fully mobilise statutory provisions for the detoxification of drug addicts to decrease drug demand and trafficking,” it added.

The court made it clear that immunity be extended to those dealing in small quantities of narcotic drugs, provided they underwent de-addiction treatment. The court recorded that Sections 27 and 64-A without such an SOP would remain ineffective, defeating the statute’s purpose.

The directions for establishing an SOP were issued during proceedings in which the court in March had recorded that investigation into drugs cases was “poor” in two states. It asked Punjab and Haryana to send batches of investigators to Himachal for training. The training is being imparted at the Police Training Centre (PTC), Daroh, Kangra.

During these proceedings, Himachal IPS officer and former PTC principal Soumya Sambasivan had submitted suggestions to tackle the drug menace and how to deal with addicts. The court appreciated her efforts and said that it was based on these suggestions that the court had issued these directions to two states and Chandigarh. The court said that appreciation to subject experts, who came out with the set of suggestions in tackling drugs, at Daroh be entered in their service records.

The court also asked the registrar general of the high court to distribute copies of the order to all the chief secretaries and DGPs in the country.