Standfirst: India’s new drug-control plan correctly targets synthetic drugs, darknet markets, cross-border routes and cartel finance. However, its success will depend on whether enforcement agencies dismantle suppliers and financiers instead of repeatedly prosecuting consumers, carriers and street peddlers.
New Delhi (ABC Live + DSLA): The Union Government unveiled the Vision Document on Drug Control 2026–2029 on 26 June 2026 at the tenth apex-level meeting of the Narco-Coordination Centre in New Delhi.
The plan recognises that India no longer faces only traditional opium, heroin and cannabis trafficking. Instead, the country now confronts synthetic drugs, clandestine laboratories, darknet sales, cryptocurrency payments, drone deliveries, maritime consignments and pharmaceutical diversion.
Moreover, the plan correctly directs agencies to move from the drug source to the cartel kingpin. It also calls for financial investigations, asset seizure, action against fugitives abroad and stronger state-level Anti-Narcotics Task Forces.
However, the plan’s public presentation remains heavily focused on seizures, arrests and drug destruction. Although those figures show enforcement activity, they do not establish whether drug use, overdose, dependence, repeat offending or cartel strength has declined.
Therefore, the real test is not how many people the police arrest. Instead, the government must show whether agencies identify and prosecute the people who finance, organise and protect the drug trade.
Key Points
- The India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029 adopts the strategy of Detect, Disrupt and Destroy.
- Moreover, the plan seeks to target drug production, transport, finance, distribution and cartel leadership.
- It proposes stronger Anti-Narcotics Task Forces, financial investigations and exclusive NDPS courts.
- However, seizures and arrests do not prove that drug dependence or cartel power has declined.
- Police often prosecute carriers because drugs are physically recovered from them.
- Meanwhile, financiers, wholesale suppliers and cartel leaders may remain outside the chargesheet.
- In addition, previous NDPS accused persons may become convenient suspects in later investigations.
- India also lacks clear role-wise data on consumers, carriers, peddlers, suppliers and cartel leaders.
- Therefore, stronger police powers require safeguards against false implication, planted recovery and sample manipulation.
- Although rehabilitation appears in the plan, the public document does not provide clear treatment and post-release targets.
- Consequently, every major NDPS case should identify the source, supplier, financier, receiver and any political or official protection.
What Is the India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029?
The India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029 treats illegal drugs as a combined law-enforcement, public-health, financial-crime and national-security problem.
Its central strategy uses three words:
Detect, Disrupt and Destroy.
First, agencies must detect drug networks through human intelligence, technology, community policing and surveillance. Next, they must disrupt supply routes, financial channels, illegal laboratories and cartel leadership. Finally, they must destroy the network so that it cannot quickly rebuild itself.
In addition, the government launched a campaign to destroy 2,09,500 kilograms of seized drugs, officially valued at more than ?6,000 crore.
However, drug destruction is only one part of the response. Unless agencies also identify suppliers, financiers and cartel leaders, the same market may replace the destroyed consignment with a new one.
What Are the Four Pillars of the Plan?
| Pillar | Main purpose |
|---|---|
| Enforcement, intelligence and operations | Detect and dismantle drug networks |
| Precursor and synthetic-drug control | Stop chemical diversion and illegal laboratories |
| Demand and harm reduction | Prevent drug use and provide treatment |
| Capacity, coordination and monitoring | Strengthen agencies and accountability |
The plan also asks states to convert their Anti-Narcotics Task Forces into full-time, well-equipped and accountable units.
Moreover, it seeks exclusive NDPS courts, Special Public Prosecutors, faster trials and action through Red Corner Notices and extradition proceedings against traffickers hiding abroad.
In addition, the plan calls for closer monitoring of borders, ports, airports, online pharmacies, darknet markets, cryptocurrency and hawala transactions.
Therefore, the policy correctly recognises that modern drug trafficking operates across physical, financial and digital networks.
ABC Live Assessment Dashboard
| Area | Assessment | Main concern |
| Cartel-focused approach | Strong in principle | Must move beyond carriers |
| Synthetic-drug response | Timely | Forensic capacity may remain weak |
| Financial investigation | Essential | Final confiscation data remain unclear |
| Border surveillance | Necessary | Domestic production also needs action |
| Special NDPS courts | Potentially useful | Courts cannot repair poor investigation |
| State coordination | Well designed | State capacity varies widely |
| Treatment and rehabilitation | Correctly included | Measurable outcomes remain unclear |
| Police accountability | Inadequate in public plan | Strong powers may invite misuse |
| Political protection | Not clearly addressed | Influential organisers may escape |
| Success measurement | Weak | Seizures and arrests dominate |
| Overall assessment | Promising but incomplete | Implementation will determine success |
Why India Needs a New Drug-Control Strategy
India sits between two major regional drug-producing zones.
The Golden Crescent, comprising Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, affects India’s western routes. Meanwhile, the Golden Triangle, comprising Myanmar, Laos and Thailand, affects India’s northeastern routes.
However, foreign trafficking represents only one part of the challenge. India also has domestic cannabis cultivation, regulated opium production, pharmaceutical diversion and clandestine synthetic-drug laboratories.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s Smuggling in India Report 2024–25 identifies new psychoactive substances, darknet distribution, mephedrone laboratories, amphetamine-type substances, body concealment and hydroponic cannabis as important emerging threats.
Therefore, India cannot solve its drug problem through border fencing alone. Instead, it must also control chemicals, pharmaceuticals, digital markets, ports, parcels and illegal production inside the country.
Moreover, each drug requires a different response. For example, crop destruction may reduce illegal cannabis or opium supply. However, it will not stop synthetic drugs made in a warehouse.
Similarly, stronger airport screening may intercept cocaine couriers. Nevertheless, it will not prevent codeine syrup or tramadol from leaking out of a lawful pharmaceutical supply chain.
Main Drugs, Sources and Supply Routes
| Drug | Main source | Common supply route |
| Heroin | Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle | Punjab, Gujarat coast, Manipur and Mizoram |
| Methamphetamine and Yaba | Myanmar and nearby production centres | Northeast–Assam–mainland route |
| Ganja | Domestic illegal cultivation | Trucks, cars, trains and inter-state roads |
| Charas and hashish | Domestic and regional cannabis production | Hill routes and road networks |
| Opium | Illegal cultivation and lawful-chain diversion | Rural and inter-state supply |
| Cocaine | South America | Airports, passengers, cargo and couriers |
| Hydroponic cannabis | Overseas cultivation | Airports, passenger baggage and parcels |
| Mephedrone | Domestic clandestine laboratories | Chemical supply chains and road transport |
| MDMA and party drugs | Imported and domestic sources | Airports, darknet, parcels and city networks |
| Tramadol and codeine syrup | Pharmaceutical diversion | Manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacies |
| Sedatives | Legal diversion and illegal production | Pharmacies, online sellers and laboratories |
The Western Drug Route
Heroin originating in or moving through Afghanistan and Pakistan may reach India through Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat and the Arabian Sea.
Punjab remains particularly vulnerable because it shares an international border with Pakistan. Moreover, traffickers increasingly use drones to drop smaller packets inside Indian territory. Local receivers then collect the packets and move them towards distributors.
Meanwhile, Gujarat’s long coastline and major ports create exposure to larger maritime consignments. Drugs may travel through fishing boats, small vessels, commercial containers or transfers from larger ships at sea.
The full western chain may operate as follows:
Foreign producer ? International supplier ? Border or maritime operator ? Indian receiver ? Distributor ? Peddler
However, police often catch the local receiver or carrier rather than the foreign supplier or financier.
Therefore, border interception must become the beginning of a financial and network investigation, not the end of the case.
The Eastern Drug Route
Heroin, methamphetamine and Yaba tablets may enter India from Myanmar through Manipur and Mizoram.
From there, drugs can move through Assam, which acts as an important transport and redistribution centre. Traffickers may then use road, rail, courier or domestic aviation networks to move consignments towards other states.
The eastern chain may therefore operate as follows:
Golden Triangle production ? Myanmar network ? Manipur or Mizoram ? Assam ? Mainland markets
However, drugs seized in Assam do not necessarily originate there. Instead, Assam may serve as a transit, storage or consolidation point.
Consequently, seizure data should separately identify the production source, entry point, transit state and intended market.
Domestic Cannabis and Opium Routes
Much of the ganja found in India comes from illegal domestic cultivation.
Because ganja is bulky, traffickers commonly use trucks, cars, vans, buses and trains. Moreover, they may conceal the drug under lawful goods or divide a large consignment into several smaller loads.
India also permits regulated opium-poppy cultivation in notified areas of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for medical and scientific purposes. However, authorities must guard against illegal cultivation, theft and diversion from the lawful supply chain.
For wider regional context, see ABC Live’s report, How the Taliban’s Opium Ban Is Reshaping Afghanistan.
Although foreign opium production affects India, investigators should not assume that every opium-related seizure has crossed an international border. Instead, they must determine whether the substance came from illegal domestic cultivation, diversion from a lawful source or foreign trafficking.
Domestic Synthetic-Drug Laboratories
Synthetic drugs do not require large agricultural fields. Instead, criminal groups can manufacture them in warehouses, farmhouses, industrial units or rented buildings.
India’s large chemical and pharmaceutical industries provide major lawful economic value. However, criminals may divert precursor chemicals, machinery and technical knowledge into illegal production.
Therefore, a synthetic-drug chain may operate as follows:
Chemical diversion ? Illegal laboratory ? Bulk producer ? Distributor ? Peddler ? Consumer
Border surveillance cannot stop a laboratory operating inside India. Consequently, the government must monitor suspicious chemical purchases, false invoices, unusual production volumes and shell businesses.
Moreover, regulators must work with police, customs authorities and financial agencies. Otherwise, each agency may see only one part of the supply chain.
Official 2024 Seizure Data
The Ministry of Home Affairs’ parliamentary data show the diversity of drugs seized during 2024.
| Substance | Quantity reported for 2024 |
| Ganja | 5,33,903 kg |
| Poppy husk and straw | 5,09,944 kg |
| Acetic anhydride | 11,477 kg |
| Opium | 8,632 kg |
| Amphetamine-type stimulants | 8,211 kg |
| Hashish | 6,483 kg |
| Mephedrone | 3,559 kg |
| Heroin | 2,596 kg |
| Cocaine | 1,483 kg |
| Hashish oil | 424 kg |
| MDMA | 195 kg |
| Ketamine | 65 kg |
These figures show enforcement output. However, they do not reveal the total volume circulating in the illegal market.
Moreover, a decline in seizures may indicate lower trafficking, weaker detection or a shift towards smaller and more potent substances. Therefore, seizure quantity cannot serve as the sole measure of success.
Similarly, the estimated monetary value of drugs requires caution. A substance may have one price at the border and another price after dilution and retail distribution.
Consequently, the government should publish the valuation method used for every major seizure.
State-Wise NDPS Cases Registered in 2024
India recorded 89,913 NDPS cases during 2024, according to data reported to the Narcotics Control Bureau.
| Leading state | Cases registered | Share of India |
| Kerala | 27,701 | 30.8% |
| Punjab | 9,025 | 10.0% |
| Maharashtra | 7,536 | 8.4% |
| Uttar Pradesh | 6,204 | 6.9% |
| Rajasthan | 5,462 | 6.1% |
| Madhya Pradesh | 4,351 | 4.8% |
| Assam | 3,350 | 3.7% |
| Odisha | 3,187 | 3.5% |
| Haryana | 3,062 | 3.4% |
| Telangana | 2,387 | 2.7% |
Together, these ten states accounted for about 80% of the NDPS cases reported during 2024.
However, the table does not distinguish consumers, dependent persons, carriers, peddlers, distributors, financiers or cartel leaders.
Therefore, a high number of cases does not automatically show that a state has dismantled more serious trafficking networks.
By contrast, a state reporting fewer cases may still have a serious drug problem. It may simply conduct fewer searches, register fewer possession cases or detect fewer supply networks.
Why Punjab Has a Large NDPS Burden
Punjab faces a combination of cross-border supply, local opioid demand and established distribution networks.
Its border with Pakistan exposes it to Golden Crescent heroin flows. Moreover, drones have changed the supply chain because traffickers can drop packets without physically crossing the border.
Punjab also has a long-standing opioid-use problem. Consequently, international supply networks can connect with an existing local market of distributors, peddlers and consumers.
However, the arrest of a border receiver does not automatically expose the foreign supplier, financier or Indian wholesale distributor.
Therefore, Punjab needs border intelligence, drone detection, financial investigation and large-scale opioid treatment at the same time.
In addition, every major seizure should trigger a backward-linkage investigation. Otherwise, the carrier may go to prison while the person controlling the route continues operating.
Why Kerala Reports So Many NDPS Cases
Kerala’s high number has a different explanation.
The state has international airports, a long coastline, major road and railway links, parcel networks, tourist centres and urban markets. Therefore, drugs may arrive by air, sea, road, rail or courier.
At the same time, Kerala follows an intensive case-registration model. The Kerala Police reported 27,530 NDPS cases in 2024 and 36,314 in 2025 in its Special and Local Laws crime statistics.
Moreover, the state’s Operation D-Hunt checked 1,40,027 people and registered 10,901 cases between 22 February and 18 April 2025, according to the Government of Kerala’s public communication.
Therefore, Kerala’s high case count may reflect both a serious drug market and intensive detection of possession and peddling offences.
However, it does not prove that Kerala has three times more organised trafficking than Punjab.
Instead, Punjab faces a border-linked opioid problem, while Kerala combines growing synthetic-drug concerns with extensive local enforcement.
The Plan’s Strongest Feature: Source-to-Kingpin Enforcement
The plan correctly directs investigators to identify the entire supply network.
A modern investigation should examine where the drug originated, who financed it, who arranged transport, who recruited the carrier, who controlled storage, who was to receive the consignment and where the profits went.
This approach can shift enforcement away from isolated possession cases and towards organised criminal systems.
However, implementation remains the central challenge.
Although the policy uses the language of source-to-kingpin enforcement, it does not publicly state how many cases must reach suppliers, financiers or cartel leaders.
Therefore, the government must turn the policy slogan into measurable investigation standards.
The Carrier Problem: Why Cartels Often Survive
The person physically carrying drugs is usually the easiest person to prosecute.
Police recover the substance from the person, vehicle or luggage. Therefore, they can build a direct possession case.
By contrast, the cartel leader may operate through several layers:
Producer ? Financier ? Supplier ? Transport organiser ? Carrier ? Distributor ? Peddler
The leader may never touch the drugs or directly communicate with the carrier. Therefore, police need financial records, authenticated messages, location evidence, surveillance, digital forensics and witnesses to move upwards.
Consequently, many cases stop at the carrier or local peddler.
A cartel can replace a carrier quickly. Therefore, large arrest numbers may create an enforcement illusion while the organisation continues operating.
Moreover, when the carrier receives a long sentence but the financier remains unidentified, the enforcement system punishes the most visible participant rather than the most powerful one.
The Plan Lacks Role-Wise Targets
The India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029 recognises backward and forward linkages. However, its public version does not provide role-wise national targets.
It does not state how many suppliers agencies must identify, how many financiers they must prosecute or what proportion of commercial-quantity cases must reach cartel leadership.
Moreover, it does not specify how many controlled deliveries agencies should conduct or how much cartel property must reach final confiscation.
Therefore, agencies may continue measuring success through cases, arrests and kilograms seized.
The government should publish the following information:
| Accused category | Required policy outcome |
| Consumer or dependent person | Treatment or proportionate legal response |
| Street peddler | Supplier identified |
| Carrier | Recruiter and receiver traced |
| Local distributor | Wholesale source identified |
| Manufacturer | Laboratory and chemical source dismantled |
| Financier | Money trail and assets established |
| Cartel leader | Prosecution and conviction outcome |
| Foreign controller | Extradition or international action |
Previous NDPS Accused May Become Easy Suspects
A person with an earlier NDPS case may become a familiar or “usual” suspect.
Police already possess the person’s name, address, photograph, telephone number and case history. Therefore, when a new seizure occurs, officers may find it easier to name that person as the supplier.
However, an earlier case cannot prove a later offence.
Every new investigation must produce fresh evidence linked to the particular consignment. Police should prove relevant calls, messages, payments, location, meetings, recovery or transport control.
Otherwise, the following cycle can emerge:
First accusation ? Police record ? Name used in later case ? More pending cases ? Bail becomes harder
Consequently, several unproved cases may reinforce one another before a court records any conviction.
Therefore, police should not arrest a previous accused solely because a carrier or co-accused named that person.
Moreover, a senior officer should review such cases before arrest or filing of the final report.
A Disclosure Statement Is a Lead, Not Proof
An arrested carrier may name a supplier during questioning.
That statement may provide an investigative lead. However, it cannot replace independent evidence.
The Supreme Court’s approach to Section 67 of the NDPS Act requires agencies to build cases through admissible evidence rather than police-controlled confessions.
Therefore, police should verify call-detail records, authenticated messages, financial transfers, location data, travel records, recovery, surveillance and control over vehicles or property.
Otherwise, an investigation may quickly name a familiar person while failing to identify the real cartel.
Moreover, a carrier may name someone under pressure, fear or expectation of favourable treatment. Consequently, the police must treat the statement as a starting point rather than the conclusion of the investigation.
How Police Can Use or Misuse the NDPS Act
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 gives police and other authorised officers strong powers of search, seizure and arrest.
Those powers are necessary because traffickers operate secretly. However, strict bail provisions also mean that an accusation can keep a person in custody for a long period.
Possible misuse or serious negligence may include:
- planting drugs;
- recording a larger quantity than was recovered;
- combining drugs recovered from different people;
- including packaging in the weight;
- obtaining signatures on prepared papers;
- using unreliable or repeated witnesses;
- forcing disclosure statements;
- manipulating samples;
- breaking the chain of custody;
- or naming a previous accused without fresh evidence.
An acquittal does not automatically prove that police deliberately planted drugs. Poor training or careless evidence handling can also damage a prosecution.
Nevertheless, the State must prove that the substance tested by the laboratory was the same substance allegedly recovered from the accused.
Therefore, accountability must focus on both deliberate misconduct and repeated investigative negligence.
Searches and Seizures Must Become Digitally Verifiable
The government should make the following safeguards compulsory:
- First, video-record the search, weighing, sealing and sampling.
- Next, give every packet a tamper-proof identification number.
- Moreover, record each person who handles the packet.
- In addition, keep the seal away from the investigating officer.
- Thereafter, obtain early inventory and sample certification from a magistrate.
- Similarly, send samples to the forensic laboratory within a fixed period.
- Also, record gross weight and net drug weight separately.
- Consequently, preserve a complete digital chain of custody.
- Furthermore, audit officers whose cases repeatedly fail for the same defects.
- Finally, investigate credible complaints of planted recovery independently.
These safeguards would protect innocent persons. Moreover, they would strengthen genuine prosecutions against traffickers.
How Indian Courts Are Dealing with NDPS Cases
Indian courts generally apply a strict approach in commercial-quantity cases.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates additional restrictions on bail. In State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, the Supreme Court held that courts cannot ignore those statutory conditions when commercial quantities and organised trafficking allegations arise.
ABC Live examined this judgment in DSLA Supreme Court Review Edition 6.
However, courts also insist that police follow legal safeguards.
The judiciary examines lawful personal searches, proper seizure and sampling, chain of custody, conscious possession, independent evidence against people named by co-accused and prolonged pretrial detention.
Therefore, the seriousness of drug trafficking cannot cure an unlawful search or unreliable evidence.
ABC Live’s report, Why the Supreme Court Upheld Acquittal in a Section 50 NDPS Case, explains why even an alleged recovery of more than 11 kilograms of charas could not save a prosecution affected by defective search procedure.
Quantity Cannot Replace Lawful Procedure
NDPS cases often involve severe punishment and reverse statutory presumptions.
Therefore, courts require the prosecution to first establish valid foundational facts.
A large seizure may create serious suspicion. However, the prosecution must still prove who recovered the drug, where it was recovered, how it was weighed, how it was sealed, where it was stored, who took the sample and how the sample reached the laboratory.
If the State cannot establish this chain, quantity alone cannot produce a lawful conviction.
Moreover, when evidence handling remains under the exclusive control of police officers, transparent documentation becomes even more important.
Consequently, procedural safeguards protect both the accused and the credibility of genuine prosecutions.
Special NDPS Courts Cannot Work Alone
The government proposes exclusive NDPS courts, dedicated prosecutors and priority hearings.
This reform may reduce delay. However, a special judge cannot finish a trial when the forensic report remains pending, witnesses repeatedly stay absent or the investigating officer cannot explain the sample record.
Therefore, India must reform the complete justice chain:
Investigation ? Evidence storage ? Forensic examination ? Prosecution ? Defence ? Trial ? Appeal
Special courts need trained judges, dedicated prosecutors, legal-aid defence lawyers, secure evidence storage, digital case records and adequate staff.
Otherwise, India may create special courts without achieving faster or fairer justice.
Moreover, courts should prioritise older cases involving undertrial prisoners. At the same time, they should separately track serious cartel cases so that complex investigations do not disappear within the general backlog.
NDPS Court Pendency Remains a Serious Problem
India still lacks one simple and current public table showing all pending NDPS cases across every state and court.
Available figures cover different dates and court categories. Therefore, they cannot be directly combined.
| State | Pending cases reported | Date and scope |
| Punjab | 35,000 | Sessions trials as of 1 January 2025 |
| Kerala | 7,202 | Designated and special courts as of 31 March 2025 |
Punjab’s Chief Minister sought financial support for 79 additional exclusive NDPS courts after reporting 35,000 pending trials.
Meanwhile, Kerala’s High Court Registry reported 7,202 cases before designated or special courts. The Kerala High Court later sought additional NDPS courts and stronger forensic capacity.
In April 2026, the Supreme Court also asked states and Union Territories to provide data on pending NDPS cases, court requirements and infrastructure needs.
Therefore, the Drug Control Vision should create a live national NDPS judicial dashboard.
What an NDPS Court Dashboard Should Show
| Indicator | Why it matters |
| Cases pending at year-end | Shows the actual backlog |
| Age of cases | Identifies extreme delay |
| Undertrials in custody | Measures liberty impact |
| Small and commercial quantities | Separates case seriousness |
| Accused person’s role | Distinguishes consumers from organisers |
| Forensic reports pending | Identifies laboratory delays |
| Acquittals for procedural failures | Measures investigation quality |
| Supplier and financier convictions | Measures cartel-level enforcement |
| Treatment diversions | Measures public-health response |
| Assets finally confiscated | Measures financial disruption |
Without this data, higher arrests may simply increase the court backlog.
Moreover, the dashboard should show how many cases involve consumers, carriers, peddlers, suppliers and cartel leaders. Otherwise, the public cannot judge whether enforcement has moved beyond the lowest level of the supply chain.
Why Some People Commit NDPS Offences Again
Repeat involvement does not arise from one common cause.
A person with drug dependence may relapse because treatment stopped. A low-level carrier may return because of unemployment, debt or cartel pressure. Meanwhile, an organised trafficker may continue because criminal profits remain high.
Therefore, authorities must distinguish among different forms of repeat involvement.
| Repeat involvement | Likely cause | Suitable response |
| Personal consumption | Untreated dependence | Medical treatment |
| Small possession | Relapse | Treatment and supervision |
| Street peddling | Dependence and income need | Treatment and livelihood support |
| Courier activity | Money, debt or coercion | Network investigation |
| Distribution | Continuing criminal profit | Prosecution and asset action |
| Cartel leadership | High profit and surviving network | Confiscation and disruption |
Prison alone may not prevent another offence. Instead, a person may leave custody without medicines, counselling, employment, housing or family support.
Therefore, post-release care must form part of the national drug-control plan.
Moreover, police must examine whether the same supplier recruited the person again. If so, repeat offending may reveal the survival of the earlier cartel network.
The First Investigation May Contribute to Repeat Offending
When the first investigation ends with only the carrier’s arrest, the supplier remains free.
That supplier may recruit the same person again or employ another courier. Therefore, a second offence may reveal the failure of the first investigation to reach the organiser.
Every repeat case should ask whether the original supplier was identified, whether the intended receiver was investigated and whether financial records were examined.
In addition, investigators should check whether the same telephone numbers, vehicles, routes, warehouses or payment methods appeared again.
If the carriers change but the network remains the same, enforcement has not dismantled the cartel.
Consequently, repeat cases should trigger a review of the earlier investigation rather than only a harsher prosecution of the individual accused.
Treatment and Rehabilitation Remain Weaker Than Enforcement
The plan promises a strict approach towards traffickers and a sympathetic approach towards people affected by addiction.
That distinction is necessary. However, the enforcement side appears more detailed than the treatment side.
The government reported in March 2026 that it supported 349 Integrated Rehabilitation Centres for Addicts, along with hospital-based treatment centres and district facilities.
However, the number of centres does not show available beds, waiting times, qualified staff, access to medicines, treatment completion or relapse rates.
Therefore, the government should publish district-wise treatment capacity and outcomes.
Moreover, treatment should continue from custody to the community. Otherwise, a person may complete detoxification in prison but relapse soon after release.
In addition, rehabilitation should include family counselling, mental-health care, housing, skills and employment support.
India’s Drug-Use Baseline Is Outdated
India’s main national substance-use survey took place in 2018 and was published in 2019.
The Magnitude of Substance Use in India report estimated that approximately 77 lakh people needed help for opioid-use problems. It also estimated that about 25 lakh people suffered from cannabis dependence.
However, India’s drug market has changed since 2018.
Synthetic drugs, online markets, pharmaceutical diversion, courier delivery and encrypted communication have expanded. Therefore, the government needs a fresh baseline during the 2026–2029 period.
Otherwise, it may reach 2029 without knowing whether drug dependence and related harm actually declined.
Moreover, the next survey should include district-level estimates, overdose deaths, treatment gaps, synthetic-drug use and pharmaceutical misuse.
Drug-Free Zones May Encourage Under-Reporting
The plan proposes drug-free campuses and public-awareness campaigns.
Prevention remains important. However, a drug-free label may also pressure schools and colleges to hide cases.
For example, an institution may fear losing its status if students report drug use. Similarly, students may avoid counselling because they fear punishment, expulsion or public stigma.
Therefore, the government should judge institutions by the quality of their response rather than by zero-case claims.
A responsible institution should provide confidential counselling, early identification, treatment referral and firm action against suppliers.
Moreover, institutions that honestly report cases should not face automatic reputational punishment. Instead, authorities should examine whether they responded quickly and effectively.
Financial Investigation Must Reach Final Confiscation
The plan correctly places financial investigation at the centre of major NDPS cases.
Drug cartels operate for profit. Therefore, arresting carriers without removing cartel wealth will not destroy the organisation.
However, identifying or provisionally attaching an asset does not equal final confiscation.
The government should separately publish assets identified, assets frozen, properties provisionally attached, attachment orders confirmed, assets finally confiscated and assets returned after cases failed.
Otherwise, large attachment announcements may create an impression of success without proving permanent financial disruption.
For wider legal context, see ABC Live’s PMLA Review 2025: Supreme Court Analysis.
Moreover, investigators should trace beneficial ownership. Otherwise, cartel leaders may hide property through relatives, shell companies or business associates.
Political and Official Protection Require Independent Investigation
Large drug networks may require local protection, inside information and access to transport or storage facilities.
Political or administrative influence may allegedly help a cartel by warning it about raids, blocking an investigation, transferring officers, pressuring witnesses or keeping influential names outside the chargesheet.
However, political allegations require evidence.
A photograph with a politician, a telephone contact or a statement made by an accused does not prove involvement. Instead, investigators should examine financial transfers, relevant communications, official files, property and business links, interference with raids and benefits linked to drug proceeds.
The opposite danger also exists. Authorities may use an NDPS allegation against a political opponent because strict bail provisions make the accusation itself highly damaging.
Therefore, cases involving elected representatives, senior officials or police personnel should receive review outside the local investigative chain.
Moreover, investigating officers should have a protected method for reporting political or administrative interference.
Stronger Powers Need Stronger Police Accountability
The Drug Control Vision seeks more surveillance, intelligence sharing, financial tracing and technology-based policing.
These tools can strengthen enforcement. However, they can also increase unlawful surveillance, false digital associations and indiscriminate arrests.
For example, a contact in a mobile phone may justify further investigation. Nevertheless, it does not automatically prove a drug conspiracy.
Similarly, a cryptocurrency transfer may appear suspicious. However, investigators must connect it with the specific drug transaction.
ABC Live’s analysis, Police Arrest in Private Complaint Cases, explains the wider principle that police authority must remain tied to lawful procedure and judicial oversight.
Therefore, digital tools should generate investigative leads, not automatic conclusions of guilt.
NCORD Meetings Must Produce Measurable Results
The government reports thousands of district and state-level Narco-Coordination Centre meetings.
However, meeting counts are administrative outputs. They do not show whether a cartel was dismantled or whether treatment access improved.
Every NCORD meeting should produce an action record:
| Item | Required detail |
| Threat identified | Drug, route or network |
| Responsible agency | Named department |
| Deadline | Fixed completion date |
| Action required | Investigation or treatment task |
| Result | Verifiable outcome |
| Delay | Reason and responsibility |
| Follow-up | Next review date |
Therefore, the government should measure completed actions rather than meetings held.
Moreover, state and district NCORD bodies should publish non-sensitive summaries. Consequently, the public could judge whether coordination meetings produced real results.
What the India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029 Should Add
Source-to-Kingpin Investigation Report
Every commercial-quantity case should include a separate report explaining where the drug originated, who financed the consignment, who arranged transport and who recruited the carrier.
Moreover, the report should identify who controlled storage, who was to receive the drugs, how payment moved and where profits were hidden.
Finally, it should examine whether any public official, political intermediary or police officer protected the network.
Role-Wise Arrest and Conviction Data
The government should separate consumers, dependent persons, carriers, peddlers, suppliers, manufacturers, financiers and cartel leaders.
Without this division, total arrest numbers reveal little about which level of the network the police actually reached.
Therefore, annual reports should show both the number of arrests and the alleged role of each accused.
Controlled-Delivery Operations
In suitable and legally supervised cases, agencies should monitor a consignment beyond the carrier so that it leads them to the receiver, distributor or warehouse.
However, such operations require trained officers, secure surveillance and strict oversight.
Therefore, controlled delivery should be used selectively and under clear operational rules.
Independent Review of Repeat Implication
A senior officer should review cases in which police repeatedly name a previous accused without fresh recovery.
Moreover, states should audit cases where the same person appears in several disclosure statements but the alleged higher supplier remains unidentified.
Consequently, the system can distinguish genuine repeat offending from investigative shortcuts.
Digital Evidence Chain
Search, seizure, weighing, sampling, storage and laboratory transfer should become digitally traceable.
This reform would reduce both deliberate manipulation and accidental evidence failure.
Moreover, it would allow courts to verify the complete history of every seized packet.
Treatment From Custody to Community
Treatment should begin in custody and continue after release.
In addition, rehabilitation should include mental-health care, family counselling, skills, employment, housing and protection from cartel recruitment.
Otherwise, imprisonment may interrupt drug use temporarily without supporting long-term recovery.
National NDPS Court Dashboard
The dashboard should show case age, undertrial custody, quantity, alleged role, forensic delay, trial outcome and appeal status.
Moreover, it should distinguish personal-use cases from major commercial and cartel cases.
Consequently, policymakers could identify whether low-level cases are overwhelming special courts.
Independent Investigation of Influential Persons
Credible allegations involving politicians, senior officials or police officers should not remain solely with the local police station.
Depending on the evidence and jurisdiction, a state-level Special Investigation Team or another competent agency may need to examine the case.
However, such transfers should follow objective legal standards rather than political convenience.
Transparent One-Year Review
The government has promised a review after the first year.
Therefore, that review should publish targets achieved, targets missed, state comparisons, suppliers prosecuted, financiers prosecuted, treatment outcomes and court delays.
In addition, it should disclose acquittals caused by procedural failures and the corrective action taken.
Implementation Roadmap
| Period | Priority action |
| 2026–27 | Establish baseline data, role-wise reporting and digital seizure records |
| 2027–28 | Expand special courts, forensic capacity and treatment networks |
| 2028–29 | Measure cartel disruption, treatment results and repeat offending |
| End of 2029 | Publish an independent national evaluation |
The government should not wait until 2029 to discover implementation failures.
Instead, it should publish quarterly and annual progress reports.
Moreover, the one-year review should compare police activity with actual outcomes. Consequently, the government could identify whether more arrests are producing stronger prosecutions or merely adding to the court backlog.
DSLA Legal Assessment
Dinesh Singh Law Associates notes that strict NDPS enforcement must remain consistent with constitutional protections, statutory safeguards and the law governing admissible evidence.
A previous criminal case, disclosure statement or mere contact with an accused person cannot by itself prove involvement in a fresh drug offence. Instead, investigators must produce independent evidence connecting the accused with the specific consignment, financial transaction, supply chain or conspiracy.
Moreover, the recovery process must remain legally reliable. Police must follow the applicable rules on search, seizure, inventory, sampling, sealing, storage and forensic examination.
Otherwise, even a serious prosecution may fail because the State cannot prove that the substance tested by the laboratory was the substance allegedly recovered from the accused.
DSLA also notes that exclusive NDPS courts will reduce pendency only when the entire justice chain works effectively. Therefore, special courts require trained investigators, timely forensic reports, dedicated prosecutors, competent legal-aid lawyers, secure evidence storage and adequate judicial staff.
Consequently, the Drug Control Vision should measure not only arrests and chargesheets but also legally sustainable convictions against suppliers, financiers and cartel leaders.
Final ABC Live Assessment
The India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029 identifies the correct modern threats.
It recognises synthetic drugs, darknet markets, cryptocurrency payments, drones, maritime routes, illegal laboratories and cartel finance. Moreover, it correctly states that enforcement must move from the source to the kingpin.
However, the plan may fail if police continue arresting carriers, previous accused persons and street peddlers while suppliers and financiers remain outside the chargesheet.
Similarly, it may fail if the government treats higher seizures and arrests as proof of victory without measuring treatment, relapse, overdose, court delay and cartel disruption.
Therefore, the central policy question should not be:
How many people did the police arrest?
Instead, the government must ask:
Did fewer people become dependent, did more people receive treatment, and did the State identify and dismantle the people who financed and controlled the drug trade?
The plan is strategically promising. Nevertheless, it requires stronger data, police accountability, judicial safeguards, treatment services and role-wise performance monitoring.
Only then can India move from repeatedly catching drug carriers to permanently weakening the cartels behind them.
How We Verified
ABC Live reviewed the official announcement of the India Drug Control Vision 2026–2029, Ministry of Home Affairs data, the NDPS Act and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s trafficking assessment.
Moreover, ABC Live examined the national substance-use survey, government treatment data, reported court-pendency figures and Supreme Court judgments concerning NDPS bail and investigation safeguards.
DSLA separately reviewed the legal issues concerning search, seizure, sampling, chain of custody, disclosure statements, criminal antecedents and special-court procedure.
Official Sources and Resources
- PIB: Vision Document on Drug Control 2026–2029
- Ministry of Home Affairs: State-wise NDPS cases and seizure data
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: Smuggling in India Reports
- India Code: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- National Survey: Magnitude of Substance Use in India
- PIB: Drug treatment and rehabilitation infrastructure
- Kerala Police: Special and Local Laws crime statistics
- Kerala Government: Operation D-Hunt
- Supreme Court: State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
- Supreme Court: NDPS Section 67 and independent evidence
Related ABC Live Reports
ABC Live — Making Complex Public Issues Simple.
- Explained: Why the Supreme Court Upheld Acquittal in a Section 50 NDPS Case
- DSLA Supreme Court Review Edition 6
- How the Taliban’s Opium Ban Is Reshaping Afghanistan
- PMLA Review 2025: Supreme Court Analysis
- Critical Analysis of Police Arrest in Private Complaint Cases
- Critical Analysis of the Government’s Naxal-Free India Claim
DSLA and ABC Live Research Note
Dinesh Singh Law Associates provided legal research, statutory analysis and case-law review for the sections dealing with the NDPS Act, police investigation, bail, search and seizure, sampling, chain of custody, special courts and repeat implication.
Meanwhile, ABC Live independently reviewed the policy, official statistics, trafficking routes, treatment framework and wider institutional implications.
Therefore, ABC Live retains full editorial responsibility for the report, its conclusions and recommendations.
Legal research and case-law review: Dinesh Singh Law Associates. Editorial responsibility: ABC Live.