Drug abuse affects individual lives, undermines socio-economic fabric: HC

Srinagar, Nov 5: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh observed that drug abuse affects not only individual lives but also undermines the socio-economic fabric of communities.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed while dismissing a Pampore man’s plea against his detention order passed by Divisional Kashmir under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1988.

Muhammad Tajamul Masoodi from Pulwama district had petitioned the court challenging the Divisional Commissioner’s detention order issued in March this year against him.

Declining the plea, the court pointed out that the case related to the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and the grounds of the detention indicated the alleged involvement of the detainee in the "trafficking of 66.58 kg of brown sugar”.

In its observations, the court pointed out that the “global drug problem aggravates challenges faced by societies, particularly as younger generations fall victim to addiction”, saying traffickers exploit vulnerabilities by ensuring a continuous supply of narcotics, which further endangers public safety and well-being.

The court also noted that the recurring nature of these offences poses a significant threat to public health and societal stability and the interconnectedness of these offences indicates a broader issue that impacts national security and health.

The court observed that Directive Principles of State Policy, which is part of the constitution, lays down that the State should strive to prohibit harmful substances, except for medical and scientific uses.

“Recently, India has been struggling with issues related to the transit of illegal drugs, which has led to increased cases of abuse and addiction. This situation has generated a growing demand for drugs within the country,” it said. “The illegal trade in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances poses significant risks to public health and welfare, and the activities of those involved in this trade also negatively impact the national economy as well.”

The court observed: “Preventive detention serves as a proactive measure employed by the executive when it believes that detaining an individual is necessary to prevent actions that could harm specified interests outlined by law. Unlike criminal proceedings, where an offence must be established, preventive detention is justified by suspicion or a reasonable belief about future conduct.”

The petitioner had the contention that the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards had not been adhered to by the competent authority while passing the order of detention, which, he said, was a replica of the police dossier and the same was divested of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar vehemently argued that the scope and objective of preventive detention were designed to safeguard society and the fundamental principle of preventive detention is not to punish an individual for his past actions but to prevent him from future actions that may pose a threat for the society at large.

“The detention order can be passed on the executive’s reasonable belief in the probability or likelihood that the detainee may engage in activities in future which are detrimental to public health or security of the State,” he said.

The counsel contended that the menace of drug trafficking and its abuse poses a great threat to society, leading to social degradation, health crises and the destabilisation of the communities and the detention laws are crucial in curbing these activities and safeguarding public order.

In response to the contention, the court said: “The ongoing observation and monitoring of the detenu’s actions after being released on bail have shown a continued participation in criminal activities. This sustained involvement in unlawful and anti-national actions supports the rationale for the preventive detention order, as it indicates a persistent and immediate risk to public safety, health and welfare of the society and national security.”

The court observed that since normal law had not been sufficient to stop drug traffickers from indulging in such activities, his detention order was passed.

“Considering the circumstances, the detention order made by the detaining authority is upheld,” the court said and rejected the plea.