The Punjab and Haryana High Court Friday issued notices to the governments of Punjab and Haryana, the Chandigarh UT administration, and its own registry on a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting alleged non-implementation of key preventive and accountability provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, to tackle the rampant drug problem in Punjab.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the PIL filed by petitioner Kanwar Pahul Singh, who appeared in person.

Singh’s petition, supported by a voluminous compilation of news clippings detailing ongoing anti-drug campaigns like ‘Yudh Nashya Virudh’ and ‘Operation Prahar’ since March 2025, as well as numerous reports of police involvement in drug rackets, extortion, corruption, and failures in enforcement, argued that despite high-profile operations, raids, arrests and seizures, the drug scourge persists due to lax implementation of statutory safeguards.

He emphasised that Sections 128 and 129 of the BNSS empower authorities to take pre-emptive action against suspected habitual offenders and persons likely to commit crimes, yet these preventive measures are rarely invoked in practice. Singh contended that proactive use of these provisions could curb the involvement of youth and adolescents in drug-related crimes, often lured by gangs for small sums.

Citing a recent statement by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Zonal Director on March 4, 2026, Singh informed the court that Punjab has approximately 74 lakh drug users, including about seven lakh in the 10-17 age group. He argued that this alarming scale demands proactive policing rather than reactive measures after offences occur.

The petitioner further pointed to delays in trials caused by witnesses failing to appear, urging strict compliance with Section 183(6) second proviso and Section 190(2) of the BNSS. These allow for early recording of witness statements before an executive magistrate in serious cases punishable with 10 years or more, and require bonds from complainants or witnesses to secure their attendance.

Singh also flagged non-enforcement of Section 40 of the NDPS Act, which mandates publishing details of convicted drug traffickers in local newspapers at the convict’s expense to deter others and raise awareness. He highlighted Sections 46 and 47 of the NDPS Act, requiring landowners to report illegal cultivation of narcotic substances on their property, and linked this to Section 172 of the BNSS for the police to issue directions and hold accountable those neglecting reporting duties.

During arguments, the bench inquired about the competent authorities for implementation, to which Singh replied that the Home Departments of the states and UT, along with police leadership, bear primary responsibility. The bench observed that the provisions cited are statutory obligations expected to be followed by authorities and granted Singh liberty to submit a detailed representation to the departments concerned.

Counsel for Punjab accepted notice on behalf of the state while contending that Sections 128 and 129 of the BNSS had been wrongly interpreted by the petitioner.

The case will now be heard on April 8.