PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS UNDER THE NDPS ACT AND THEIR JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION: BALANCING DRUG CONTROL WITH CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES IN INDIA
AUTHOR – KAVIYA R, LLM (CBCS), DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, THE TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI
BEST CITATION – KAVIYA R, PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS UNDER THE NDPS ACT AND THEIR JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION: BALANCING DRUG CONTROL WITH CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (9) OF 2026, PG. 01-05, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I944
ABSTRACT:
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) represents the main legal instrument which regulates narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in India. Being designed to deal with the threat of drug trafficking and drug abuse, the Act imposes severe punishments along with bail restrictions and wide search and investigation powers. Being aware that such special powers could be misused, the lawmakers provided for certain safeguards relating to search, seizure, arrest, detention, taking samples, custody of seized material and presentation of evidence.
The Indian Supreme Court has always stressed that stringent provisions made under the NDPS Act should be matched with strict observance of the procedures prescribed for the same. The interpretation of various laws by the judiciary has resulted in turning those provisions into constitutional guarantees that are related to Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. In cases such as State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh, State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, Vijay Sinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, and Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, various judicial principles relating to procedural compliance under the NDPS Act were laid down.
The present study seeks to analyze the procedural safeguards provided in Sections 42, 43, 49, 50, 50A, 52, 52A, 55, 57, and 67 of the NDPS Act. It also analyzes constitutional aspects, judicial precedents, issues regarding evidence, and the international comparison of similar issues. In conclusion, the paper emphasizes that procedural safeguards are not just procedural requirements but are also constitutional requirements necessary to ensure that the war against drug trafficking is conducted in accordance with law.
Keywords: NDPS Act, Procedural Safeguards, Search and Seizure, Fair Trial, Constitutional Rights, Drug Control, Criminal Justice.