NEW DELHI, JAN 24, 2013: THIS order, and directions, are an outcome of the bail matter in Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics listed before this bench, wherein an accused, who had been languishing in prison for more than twelve years, awaiting the commencement of his trial for an offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), was consistently denied bail, even by the High Court. Significantly, the maximum punishment for the offence the accused was incarcerated for, is twenty years; hence, the undertrial had remained in detention for a period exceeding one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment.

The Court is reminded of Justice Felix Frankfurter's immortal words in Antonio Richard Rochin Vs. People of the State of California, coincidentally a case pertaining to narcotics, wherein he described some types of conduct by state agents, although not specifically prohibited by explicit language in the Constitution, as those that "shock the conscience" in that they offend "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice." Due process of law requires the state to observe those principles that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The general state of affairs pertaining to trials of offences under the NDPS Act deserves a similar description.

The Court further observed, “The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity. It also reflects our imprudence when our prisons are bursting at their seams. For the prisoner himself, imprisonment for the purposes of trial is as ignoble as imprisonment on conviction for an offence, since the damning finger and opprobrious eyes of society draw no difference between the two. The plight of the undertrial seems to gain focus only on a solicitous inquiry by this Court, and soon after, quickly fades into the backdrop.”

The Supreme Court has now laid down directions and guidelines for due observance by all concerned as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that these directions are restricted only to the proceedings under the NDPS Act.

The Directions/Guidelines are :-

1. No Adjournments : The lavishness with which adjournments are granted is not an ailment exclusive to narcotics trials; courts at every level suffer from this predicament. The institutionalization of generous dispensation of adjournments is exploited to prolong trials for varied considerations. No NDPS court would grant adjournments at the request of a party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party. This exception must be treated as an exception, and must not be allowed to swallow the generic rule against grant of adjournments. Further, where the date for hearing has been fixed as per the convenience of the counsel, no adjournment shall be granted without exception. Adherence to this principle would go a long way in cutting short that queue to the doors of justice.

2. Examination of Witnesses: It would be prudent to return to the erstwhile method of holding “session's trials” i.e. conducting examination and cross-examination of a witness on consecutive days over a block period of three to four days. This permits a witness to take the stand after making one-time arrangements for travel and accommodation, after which, he is liberated from his civil duties qua a particular case. Therefore, it is directed to the concerned courts to adopt the method of “session's trials” and assign block dates for examination of witnesses.

3. Workload: The courts are unduly overburdened, an outcome of the diverse repertoire of cases they are expected to handle. Significant time of the NDPS Court is expended in dealing with bail and other criminal matters. Besides, many states do not even have the necessary NDPS courts to deal with the volume of NDPS cases. Each state, in consultation with the High Court, particularly the states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir (where the pendency of cases over five years is stated to be high), is directed to establish Special Courts which would deal exclusively with offences under the NDPS Act.

4. Narcotics Labs: The Centre must ensure equal access to CFSL's from different parts of the country. The current four CFSL's only cater to the needs of northern and some areas of western and eastern parts of the country. Therefore, besides the three in the pipeline, more CFSL's must be established, especially to cater to the needs of southern and eastern parts of the country. Several states do not possess any existing infrastructure to facilitate analysis of samples and are hence, compelled to send them to laboratories in other parts of the country for scrutiny. Therefore, each state is required to establish state level and regional level forensic science laboratories. However, the decision as to the numbers of such laboratories would depend on the backlog of cases in the state.

5. Personnel: Shortage of staff is bound to hamper with the smooth functioning of these laboratories, and hence, Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs is directed to address the same on an urgent basis. Further, steps must be taken by the concerned departments to improve the quality and expertise of the technical staff, equipment and testing laboratories.

6. Monitoring: A monitoring agency is pivotal for the effective management of these recommendations and for the general amelioration of the state of affairs. Therefore, it is directed that nodal officers be appointed in all the departments dealing with the NDPS cases, for monitoring the progress of investigation and trial. This nodal officer must be equivalent or superior to the rank of Superintendent of Police, who shall ensure that the trial is not delayed on account of non-supply of documents, non- availability of the witnesses, or for any other reason.

7. Documents in e-form: For the simplification of the process, it is directed that the filing of the charge- sheet and supply of other documents must also be provided in electronic form. However, this direction must not be treated as a substitute for hard copies of the same which are indispensable for court proceedings.

The Supreme Court expected and hoped that the directions shall be complied with by the Central Government, State Governments and the Union Territories, as the case may be, expeditiously and in the spirit that these have been made.

(See 2013-TIOL-08-SC-NDPS)