Purity, Proof, And Proportionality: Integrating Forensic Toxicology Into NDPS Jurisprudence
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 31
- 2 min read
Mayank Raj Vijay Kumar Sharma, Symbiosis Law School
ABSTRACT
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, creates a sentencing scheme where the limitation of an individual's liberty depends precariously on the quantity of illicit drugs involved. The three-part scheme of indicating quantities as small, intermediate, or commercial carries severe consequences, including strict provisions on bail, a reverse burden of proof, and mandatory minimum terms of years to life imprisonment. However, there is a flaw in this scheme: this essential "quantity" factor is typically determined based on qualitative forensic testing, which identifies the substance but does not assess the purity or measure the amount of pharmacologically active narcotic drug. This paper advances a pro-defence argument that the use of incomplete scientific evidence in determination of a critical factor makes the exercise of deciding NDPS matters arbitrary and violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21 and leads to vast disparity in sentencing. In undertaking a doctrinal analysis of cases and scientifically examining the processes and policies behind forensic toxicology (e.g., GC- MS, LC-MS), this paper demonstrates how courts obtain forensic evidence and are conflating harmless mixtures with active narcotic drugs, thereby punishing street carriers or addicts as kingpins. The paper ends with the conclusion that the constitutional value of proportionality requires, at the very least, compulsory quantitative forensic analysis. The paper also proposes a comprehensive model of reform which includes legislative change, forensic standardization, and enhanced judicial training to revitalize the NDPS scheme with the essential tenets of justice, fairness and human dignity.
Keywords: NDPS Act; Forensic Toxicology; Proportionality; Quantification; Legal Evidence; Drug Law; Judicial Adjudication; Quantitative Analysis; Pro-Defence Rights; Sentencing Reform.
