Drug addicts are victims, can’t be treated as criminals

Saurabh Malik

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to initiate criminal proceedings against consumers of “narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances” to eradicate the menace in the case of “Surmukh Singh versus State of Punjab”.

But any interpretation of the order without distinguishing the letter from the spirit would be incomplete. When one obeys only the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit, one is essentially indulging in the literal interpretation of the words. In the process, one may completely miss comprehending the intent of the Judge who has penned down the law or issued the directive.

A police force mulling throwing behind bars consumers of drugs may be obeying the law in letter but not necessarily in spirit. Punishment is meant for criminals, not the victims, and no law will ever recommend it.

Possession of drugs in itself is an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the factor determining the quantum of punishment is not purported personal or commercial use, but the drug quantity found with a person.

Consumption of drug is an offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act and is punishable with imprisonment for up to a year in case of some drugs and six months in case of others. It’s this provision of law that the High Court order refers to in its judgment. But lawmakers inserted yet another provision in the same Act to take consumers away from the rigours of law by giving them an opportunity to leave behind a life of dependence on drugs. The Section or provision does not make jail term mandatory for them. Addicts volunteering for treatment, in fact, get immunity under Section 64-A of the Act.

Among other things, it says an addict charged with an offence punishable under Section 27 would not be liable to prosecution under the provision, if he voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction. The provision comes with a rider — immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo complete treatment.

No other law, perhaps, has an inherent amnesty clause as potent as Section 64-A and here is where it distinguishes an addict from a common criminal who can be left out on probation but not pardoned. To throw a consumer in jail with him would be nothing but travesty of law.

Interpreting the order to mean essential jail term would not only be erroneous, but give the judgment a meaning not intended by the Bench and would be against its very spirit. To read it to mean initiation of punitive action against consumer without giving him a chance to reform would rather make the order regressive, which it certainly is not.  

The High Court itself directed initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, which is subject to Section 64-A. The High Court order means proceedings can be initiated only when the consumer is unwilling to get himself treated.   

The powers that be need to give the consumers a chance to reform as the cure lies not in jail, but elsewhere. Spare the rod and spoil is a maxim detached from any theory of criminal jurisprudence that aims at reformation. The intention behind initiation of criminal proceeding has to be reformative, that too in case of a criminal and not a victim for whom rehabilitation is the answer.

The order, in any case, is a part of a series of rulings and directions issued by the High Court over the past few months and needs to be essentially read in continuation of, and in conjunction with, its previous judgments on targeting the suppliers as well for curtailing both demand and supply of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Law, and the order

The bitter-better case

If you are seeking court orders to legalise parting of ways after claiming that your spouse is treading the path of cruelty, the road ahead will meander through technicalities. For, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quoted an apex court judgment to say the concept of cruelty differed from person to person, depending on his or her upbringing, level of sensitivity, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious belief, value system, and educational, family and cultural background. The judgment makes it clear that your wife cannot be said to be your bitter-half even if she is vitiating her matrimonial home’s atmosphere. She will still be described your better-half as the Bench has asserted: “Mere aggressive behaviour and sadness of mood of wife does not mean that the wife is spoiling the atmosphere of her matrimonial home”. The Bench has concluded nuptial knots cannot be allowed to be broken on unfounded allegations of cruelty —- physical or mental. The ruling came in a matrimonial dispute case where the husband was seeking a divorce, claiming that his wife right from the next day of marriage started quarrelling with him and his parents. The Bench asserted this was ordinary wear and tear of married life which happened in day-to-day life.