Supreme Court Urges Targeting 'Bigger Sharks' in Punjab Drug Menace

In a pointed rebuke during a suo motu hearing on establishing special courts for narcotics trials, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant sharply criticized Punjab authorities for their ineffective handling of the state's escalating drug crisis. The CJI lambasted the Punjab Police for focusing on low-level peddlers to garner media publicity while turning a blind eye to the "bigger sharks"—influential figures allegedly orchestrating widespread trafficking networks. Highlighting heartbreaking human stories and drawing from his own experience as a former judge at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the CJI pledged full judicial support to combat the menace, signaling a potential paradigm shift in NDPS enforcement.

Background on the Suo Motu Proceedings

The remarks came in the case IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS , registered as SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026. This suo motu petition addresses the mounting backlog of trials under special statutes, including the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. Recognizing the urgency of expeditious justice in these high-stakes matters, the Supreme Court recently issued a broad framework for constituting special courts across states and Union Territories. The number of such courts would be calibrated based on the volume of pending trials in each jurisdiction, aiming to streamline prosecutions and reduce delays that often allow accused persons to exploit procedural loopholes.

During the latest hearing, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi turned its attention to Punjab, a state notorious for its drug problem. Punjab has long grappled with cross-border smuggling from Pakistan and Afghanistan, fueling addiction rates that have devastated communities. The bench's order underscored the judiciary's frustration with systemic failures, particularly after the CJI recounted personal encounters with NDPS cases from his High Court days. This context sets the stage for the CJI's candid observations, which blended empathy, exasperation, and a call to action.

CJI Surya Kant's Stark Rebuke to Punjab Authorities

CJI Surya Kant, hailing from neighboring Haryana and well-acquainted with the region's challenges, did not mince words. "In Punjab, condition is terrible," he remarked, painting a vivid picture of societal decay. He initially hesitated to critique police functioning directly— "Today, I don't want to comment on your police functioning" —but soon elaborated: "They need to be sensitized. Whom they are picking up and whom they are letting off—it's known to everyone."

The CJI's core grievance was the skewed enforcement strategy. "Problem is your police is more keen in getting publicity in newspaper. They catch hold a small villager, poor boy, get him photographed and come in the newspaper. As if you have done a very commendable job," he stated. This practice, he argued, diverts attention from the "root of the matter," such as markets in Ludhiana that have become epicenters of supply. "Why don't you go to root of the matter? You are picking up people when something comes in market. How is it reaching there? Ask your people, they will tell you," the CJI pressed the state counsel.

Drawing from experience, the CJI revealed facing "threats" from "nasty persons" during his tenure but remained undeterred. "Don't go by faces who are operating there only. There are cases operating by different [power]. I have seen it. I have suffered also. Lot of threats and all these things were given by the nasty people...but of course I did not fear and you know my orders there," he affirmed.

The Human Cost of the Drug Menace

To underscore the crisis's gravity, CJI Surya Kant invoked poignant real-life tragedies emerging in the public domain. "There are instances now surfacing in public domain...an old woman, more than 60 years...crying because she lost her 5th son to drug addition. All of her 5 children have died, one after the other. Look at the plight of that mother. This is the second instance that has happened in last 2 weeks. What is the State doing?" he questioned. These anecdotes humanize the statistics, illustrating how addiction has torn families apart and overwhelmed Punjab's social fabric. The alarming rise in cases demands a "revisit by all stakeholders," the CJI emphasized.

Call to Target 'Bigger Sharks' Over Small Peddlers

At the heart of the CJI's directive was a strategic pivot: "Stressing the importance of catching the 'bigger sharks', CJI said...these bigger sharks that are involved, instead of small peddlers, we need to catch hold. Bigger sharks, as particularly influential people are involved. Otherwise situation is going out of hand." When state counsel assured no accused would go scot-free, the CJI reiterated this focus, urging action against deep-rooted syndicates rather than superficial wins.

This critique resonates with longstanding concerns in NDPS jurisprudence, where Section 37's stringent bail provisions aim to deter major players, yet enforcement often stalls at street-level arrests. Legal professionals will note parallels to cases like Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), where the Supreme Court stressed intelligence-led operations over quantity of arrests.

Proposals for Enhanced Coordination and Monitoring

Looking beyond Punjab, the CJI engaged Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay for the Union government, advocating a pan-India mechanism. "Maybe think of setting up some statutory mechanism where the agencies can well coordinate, their powers are well defined. Suppose there's a big supplier in State A, that information should be shared immediately in other states also to establish...they don't operate in silos. There will be a deep-rooted syndicate, a mafia, operating. So unless you have state coordination, you will not be able to..." he suggested.

He further noted that Central intervention might be necessary in recalcitrant cases, provided states adopt a collaborative mindset: "They should not feel centre is interfering...motive should be to curb this crime." This hints at empowering agencies like the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or creating a dedicated anti-drug mafia task force, akin to the NIA for terrorism.

Legal Framework for Special Courts

The bench's order provides a scalable model: special courts proportional to pendency, ensuring dedicated judicial resources for NDPS and UAPA matters. "From judicial side, I will ensure that all High Courts provide full support," the CJI committed. This builds on precedents like the 2021 directive for POCSO special courts, promising reduced trial times from years to months, enhancing deterrence under NDPS's reverse burden provisions.

Implications for NDPS Litigation and Enforcement

For legal practitioners, this hearing illuminates enforcement pitfalls. NDPS cases often hinge on informant tips and seizures, but the CJI's remarks spotlight intelligence failures against organized crime. Judges may now scrutinize police charge sheets more rigorously, demanding evidence of efforts against kingpins. Prosecutors face pressure to prioritize quality over quantity, while defense counsel could leverage publicity-driven arrests to argue selective enforcement.

Constitutionally, the comments tread the line between judicial oversight and executive domain, invoking Article 21's right to speedy justice and the state's Directive Principles to combat social evils. Yet, they risk perceptions of overreach, though rooted in the SC's suo motu powers under Article 32.

Potential Shifts in Legal Practice and Policy

The fallout could reshape NDPS practice. Expect a surge in special court designations, burdening but benefiting litigators specializing in narcotics. States like Punjab may overhaul policing via sensitization programs, intel-sharing protocols, and anti-corruption drives targeting "influential" enablers. Nationally, a central agency could standardize investigations, aiding interstate cases under NDPS Section 52A.

For the bar, opportunities arise in training police on evidence collection and advocating for victim rehabilitation under NDPS-linked schemes. Policymakers might revisit the 2014 Muzaffar Assadi Committee recommendations for a National Drug Coordination Centre.

Conclusion

CJI Surya Kant's intervention marks a clarion call against complacency in India's war on drugs. By exposing the chasm between street arrests and syndicate busts, and committing judicial heft via special courts, the Supreme Court has catalyzed urgency. Punjab's tragedy underscores the stakes: without targeting "bigger sharks," the menace will persist. Legal professionals must now operationalize these insights—pushing for coordinated, intelligence-driven justice to reclaim communities from addiction's grip.