Only one among four persons suffering from illicit drugs dependence receives treatment

The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country withthe Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India.

As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders (SUD) and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family. 

Despite the efforts of the State, an unprecedented scale of coordination and profit seeking has sustained this menace so hard hitting and multifaceted that it causes suffering cutting across age groups, communities, and regions. Worse than suffering and pain, is the endeavour to profit from it and use the proceeds thereof for the committing of other crimes against society and the State such as conspiracy against the State and funding terrorist activities. Profits from drug trafficking are increasingly used for funding terrorism and supporting violence. 

From heroin and synthetic drugs to prescription medication abuse, India is grappling with an expanding drug trade and a rising addiction crisis. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s 2019 Report (MoSJE 2019 Report) on ‘Magnitude of Substance Use in India’ revealed that nearly 2.26 crore people use opioids in India. 

It was also borne out that substance use exists in all the population groups; however, adult men bear the brunt of substance use disorders. After alcohol, cannabis and opioids are the next most commonly used substances in India. About 2.8% of the population (3.1 crore individuals) reported having used cannabis and its products, of which 1.2% (approximately 1.3 crore persons) was illegal cannabis and its products. 

Alarmingly, the rate of opioid dependence is pacing at an alarming rate, partly due to the ongoing narcotic trade across the country’s borders and their consequent ease of availability. According to the MoSJE 2019 Report, there are approximately 77 lakh problem opioid users – the Report defines “problem users” as those using the drug in harmful or dependent pattern in India. More than half of 77 Lakh problem opioid users in India are spread throughout the States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Orissa. 

Studies across the globe suggest that easy access to narcotic substances, peer pressure, and mental health challenges particularly in the context of academic pressure and family dysfunction could be significant contributors to this disturbing trend. Addiction at a young age can derail academic, professional and personal aims, leading to long-term socio-economic instability of almost an entire generation. The psychological impact of drug abuse, including depression, anxiety, and violent tendencies, further exacerbates the problem. 

The reasons behind this rise in juvenile addiction are complex. Peer pressure, lack of parental affection, care and guidance, stress from academic pressures and the easy availability of drugs contribute to this alarming trend. In many cases, adolescents resort to drugs as a form of escapism, trying to cope with personal and emotional issues. 

Preventing drug addiction among adolescents requires a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders: parents and siblings, schools and the community. Given the disturbing rise in adolescent drug use, urgent interventions are needed. 

The MoSJE 2019 Report found that only one among four persons suffering from dependence on illicit drugs had ever received any treatment and only one in twenty persons with illicit drug dependence ever received any in-patient treatment. Given the scale of the issue, there is need for a more comprehensive view of the solutions to the grave problem. 

Parents have a crucial role in the prevention of drug abuse among adolescents. Parental awareness, communication, and support are key in mitigating the risk of drug addiction. The first step in the effective preventive leap should start within the household. 

In our view, the most important yearning of children is love and affection and a sense of security emanating from parents and family. Domestic violence and discord between parents; lack of time being spent by parents with children due to various reasons and compensating the same by pumping pocket money are some of the reasons why young adolescents are being veered towards escapism and substance abuse. Affectionate and friendly conversations between parents and children and a continuous assessment of the direction in which a child is proceeding is a duty which each parent must undertake. This is to build a sense of emotional security around a child for, in our view, an emotionally secure child would not become vulnerable and be lured towards substance abuse as a possible path towards seeking what is lacking in life. 

No longer should drug abuse be treated as a taboo that parents disengage from. Instead, open discussions about drug use and its ill consequences will provide parents and children a safe space and equip children with the knowledge to help themselves out of peer pressure. 

Of equal importance is the need for schools and colleges to aid the government programs in educating students about the perils of drug abuse. They must include prevention of drug abuse in their curriculum, focusing on the physical, emotional, and legal consequences of drug abuse. Naturally, all efforts should be backed by scientific evidence and experiential learning. It is an urgent need that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s framework of National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction and other programs are given a boost and truly imbibed in drug education programs run by schools and colleges in the country. 

Local communities should work with NGOs and law enforcement agencies to create awareness campaigns that address the risks of drug abuse with a special focus on schools and youth centres. Either through awareness campaigns, community outreach or peer education, communities can play a critical role in creating knowledgeable safe space that curb the use of drugs. 

The National Legal Services Authority and State Legal Authorities must devise awareness programs and implement them particularly in vulnerable regions of the States and territories more exposed to drug menace. 

There is a need for more synergies along the lines of Joint Action Plan on “Prevention of Drugs and Substance Abuse among Children and Illicit Trafficking” developed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in collaboration with Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).

For youngsters just beginning to explore the world, the consumption of drugs in popular culture has propelled the cultural push towards a dangerous lifestyle, one that incorrigibly applauds drugs use as ‘cool’ and a fashionable display of camaraderie. We implore the youth to take charge of their decisional autonomy and firmly resist peer pressure and desist from emulation of certain personalities who may be indulging in drugs. It is sad that vulnerable children turn to drugs as an escapism from emotional distress and academic pressures or due to peer pressure. The unfortunate reality is that victims of substance abuse are not limited to the unfortunate ones who have fallen prey to it but also include their family and peers. Our approach towards the victims of drug abuse must not be to demonize the victims but to rehabilitate them.

Deep-rooted in our constitutional philosophy and social fabric is the vision to facilitate every citizen to be a constructive citizen, the best they can be. This vision hopes that the State’s obligation is met with a commitment to contribute as constructive citizens to the nation’s development. Part and parcel of this constructive citizenship is the positive aspect of uplifting oneself and those around towards a more participative polity and dynamic economy. Inextricably linked to this commitment is also the negative aspect of constructive citizenship, that is, to actively refrain from contributing against the interest of the community and the nation. It is a need of the times that the end consumers of the illicit drug trade exercise community-friendly decision making and refuse 

to sustain the bottom-line of drug traffickers. The arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode the shine of the youth of India!

The Court concluded: "We find that the NIA was justified in seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged against him under the provisions of the NIA Act in the State of Punjab. This is because the said offences are now being investigated by the NIA and there is also transfer of the trial from the concerned Special Court in the State of Punjab to the Special Court in the State of Gujarat, to be tried along with Scheduled Offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA as per Section 14 of the NIA Act. Therefore, he special leave petition is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.The interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2024 and extended from time to time stands vacated."

This text is excerpted from the judgement of Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh in Ankush Vipan Kapoor vs. National Investigation Agency 

 It was authored by Justice Nagarathna. 

"Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law: Supreme Court

In Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court heard the appeal of the appellant who is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. A charge sheet was filed on January 7, 2023. The appellant applied for bail before the Special Court under the UAPA, which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and some co-accused applied for bail before the High Court. 

The prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected by Patna High Court's bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey, while bail was granted to a co-accused. The High Court's verdict was authored by Justice Kumar. As far the accused who was granted bail by the High Court is concerned, Justice Kumar observed, "Merely being a member of a banned organization, would not justify rejection of bail when the Trial is likely to continue for a longer time." The judgement reads: "Considering the overall materials against appellant/Nooruddin Jangi @ Advocate Nooruddin Jangi [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 749 of 2023], we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order dated 01.05.2023, refusing to grant him bail." Prior to High Court's judgement, the prayer for bail of Advocate Nooruddin Jangi in Special Case No. 07 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022 was rejected by Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna vide order dated 01.05.2023.

With regard to Jalaluddin Khan, the Supreme Court observed: "we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively." It further said: "When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. 'Bail is the rule and jail is an exception' is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Special Court. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum of 7 days from today. The Special Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail until the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms and conditions."  

The judgement was authored by Justice Oka. It was delivered on August 13, 2024. Mukta Gupta, the appellant's senior counsel relied on Court's decision in Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024).

Relying on the Court's decision in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2022), the Court examined the material forming part of the charge sheet to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the person applying for bail are prima facie true. While doing so, the court is required to take the charge sheet as it is. 

The Court observed: "There is nothing in the charge sheet which shows that the appellant has taken part in or has committed unlawful activities as defined in the UAPA. There is no specific material to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, or incited commission of any unlawful activities. A terrorist act is defined in Section 15(1). Assuming that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts or were making any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act to which the appellant was a party. There is no material produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised, or incited the commission of terrorist acts or any preparatory activity." 

It further observed: "We must note here that the appellant’s son conducted the negotiations for giving the first floor on rent. Taking the charge sheet as correct, it is not possible to record a prima facie finding that the appellant knowingly facilitated the commission or preparation of terrorist acts by letting out the first floor premises. Again, there is no allegation in the charge sheet against the appellant that he organised any camps to impart training in terrorism."

The Court recorded: "There is not even an allegation in the charge sheet that the appellant was a member of any terrorist gang. As regards the second part of being a member of a terrorist organisation, as per Section 2(m), a terrorist organisation means an organisation listed in the first schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed. The charge sheet does not mention the name of the terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the appellant was a member. We find that the PFI is not a terrorist organisation, as is evident from the first schedule."

The Court concluded: "Therefore, on plain reading of the charge sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under the UAPA is prima facie true. We have taken the charge sheet and the statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a mini-trial. Looking at what we have held earlier, it is impossible to record a prima facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under the UAPA was prima facie true. No antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record. The upshot of the above discussion is that there was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the appellant."

The application for bail of Jalaluddin Khan was rejected by the Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna in Special Case No. 07 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022, by order dated 15.04.2023. It was rejected by the High Court as well. Drawing on Supreme Court's decision in National Investigation Agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali; (2019) 5 SCC 1, the High Court had not found "any folly with the conclusion of the Trial Court" with respect to Jalaluddin Khan. Drawing on the decision in Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024), Supreme Court found the conclusion of the Trial Court and the High Court to be unreasonable. It did not question the grant of bail to Advocate Nooruddin Jangi by the High Court.   

Repeal UAPA, Sedition Law and AFSPA

The following resolution was adopted in the meeting held in 'Press Club of India' on 11th December 2021 to commemorate the International Human Rights Day.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED IN THE PUBLIC MEETING ORGANIZED BY PUCL, DELHI, JANHASTAKSHEP, LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY & CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY TO COMMEMORATE THE HUMAN  RIGHTS DAY HELD ON 11^TH DECEMBER, 2021 AT PRESS CLUB OF INDIA:

“REPEAL UAPA, SEDITION LAW & AFSPA”

--------------------------------------

Our country has a long history of gross abuse of power and deprivation of human rights in the context of the laws relating to sedition, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In order to provide legal sanctity to their repressive measures, successive governments in India have armed themselves with so called ‘anti-terrorism’ laws, namely UAPA, TADA, Sedition Law and AFSPA etc.; each successive law being more draconian than the previous one.

These laws also stand out for the remarkable consensual support they enjoy from various ruling parties, albeit with pretence of differences depending on who is ruling where and who is in opposition where. This is best illustrated by the manner in which a grand show was made of repealing POTA by the UPA government in 2004, while incorporating all of its draconian provisions in UAPA, including ‘conspiracy’ and ‘act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.’ While different political parties of the ruling classes mouth opposition to various acts of state repression depending on their political convenience, none have sought to mobilize their support base for the abrogation of these laws, for they rely on the same to secure themselves as and when and where ever they are in power. Rather, these acts have been become tools tried and tested by successive governments to suppress dissent and crush peaceful democratic movements. The recent death of Father Stan Swamy, as an under-trial prisoner in the Bhima Goregaon case Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is illustrative of the gross misuse of power. Thousands of under-trials, who are entitled to bail under the ordinary criminal trials are denied bail and made to suffer prosecution in false cases.

The Sedition Law owes its existence to our colonial masters who in order to perpetuate their colonial rule, resorted to the draconian laws of sedition, Great freedom fighters like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi suffered trial and imprisonment under the sedition laws in their fight agsinst the british rule. Unfortunately when they themselves cam to power, they failed to repeal the ‘Sedition Law.’ Instead the  first constitutional amendment to India’s constitution was carried out to introduce the words ‘public purpose’ in Article 19 (1) to curtail the right to freedom of expression, and hence grant respectability to colonial era tools of subjugating the people. Independent India has no justifiable reasons to continue the law of sedition. However, our rulers continued with the laws of sedition to stifle dissent. Recent history shows widespread misuse of the draconian laws to suppress legitimate political expressions and protests.

It is little surprise then that today we have reached a situation where students, journalists, writers, human rights activists, and members of the minority communities are by default included in the definition of a terrorist. This change in understanding of who is a terrorist and what constitutes terrorism is best exemplified the recent statement of the National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval who while addressing the new IPS recruits said that a next front of war needs to be opened against the ‘civil society.’

There is little doubt that the RSS led Modi government has ascended this mendacity to newer heights of repression. A new database launched by the online portal, Article 14, recently showed that 96% of the sedition cases filed against 405 Indians for criticising political leaders and governments over the last decade were registered after the Narendra Modi government first came to power in 2014.  Holding posters, shouting slogans-even against CAA, social media posts and even personal communication were among the expressions considered to be seditious by the current government. The recent killing of 17 innocent miners in Nagaland is only one of the many horrendous instances in the disturbed areas, whether it is North-East or Kashmir.

The people of India however have resisted these black laws through the history by putting up valiant struggles for fulfilment of their democratic aspirations while defying all attempts by the rulers to muzzle their voices. All the aforesaid three laws UAPA, Sedition and AFSPA are the most draconian measures which should have no place in a civilized society. As responsible citizens of India we feel that we have right to criticise  the executive, the judiciary, the bureaucracy or the Armed Forces. The shoulders of those in power who govern should be broad enough to accept criticism.

During the rule of the present regime the demands for repeal of these black laws have been raised with a new vigour. It is high time that these laws are now abolished. Ordinary laws are more than sufficient to deal with the problems confronting the nation.

THEREFORE this meeting organized  by PUCL, Delhi, JANHASTAKSHEP, LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY TO COMMEMORATE  HUMAN  RIGHTS  DAY RESOLVE  AND URGE  THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY TO  FORTHWITH TAKE  URGENT STEPS   FOR THE REPEAL OF THE   THREE BLACK LAWS I.E. ‘UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT (UAPA)’, ‘LAW OF SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124-A IPC ‘AND ‘ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS)  ACT ‘ (AFSPA).

------------------------------------------------------