The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that individuals orchestrating drug-trafficking operations from a distance, often using others as scapegoats, are required to be held equally accountable and should not be granted leniency.
Referring to Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, Justice Sandeep Moudgil made it clear that those masterminding drug networks—despite not being in direct possession of contraband—were equally culpable and required to face stringent legal consequences.
Justice Moudgil asserted that such individuals frequently evaded prosecution by claiming absence from the scene or lack of conscious possession of drugs. But this defence should not shield the primary conspirators, who manipulated the drug trade from behind the scenes.
The court was of the opinion that the masterminds often exploited others, who are caught with the contraband, while they remain untouched. “An additional aspect that must be considered by this court is the frequent practice where individuals implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act asserted that they were neither present at the scene, nor had any contraband in their conscious possession. Taking advantage of this defence, many such accused persons are granted bail. However, this practice needs to be addressed, as individuals targeted under Section 29 are often the primary masterminds behind the drug trafficking networks…,” Justice Moudgil asserted.
The observations are significant as Section 29 targets not just those caught with drugs but also the masterminds behind drug trafficking networks. It indicates that anyone involved in planning, financing or aiding drug-related crimes—even if not physically present or in direct possession of contraband—can be prosecuted and punished. This provision ensures that the entire chain of drug trafficking, from the ground-level operatives to the hidden kingpins, is held accountable. It also closes the loophole often used by orchestrators who manipulate others while staying in the shadows.
Pointing at the devastating societal and economic impact of drug trafficking, Justice Moudgil asserted it was a “social malady" that not only destroyed lives, but also fuelled illicit activities, including terrorism. The court added that the legislature’s intent was to curb the adverse effects of narcotic drugs, which reduced individuals to a “zombie-like existence" and eroded their humanity.
