Embracing Technology in NDPS Investigations: Ensuring Transparency and Procedural Fairness

Introduction

Part of India’s strictest criminal legislation, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) addresses the issue of drug trafficking enforcement. While its provisions empower enforcement agencies vigorously, the same law demands due process to protect an individual’s liberty. Between the two extremes—enforcement and fairness—Indian courts have increasingly emphasized the use of technology as a means to achieve transparency and compliance with procedural safeguards during narcotics-related investigations.

The use of audio-visual aids in NDPS cases, as recently highlighted by the Delhi High Court, marks a notable shift towards aligning judicial processes with the principles of natural justice, technological advancement, and modern investigative methodologies.

Need for Technological Integration in NDPS Probes

The legality and credibility of “search,” “seizure,” and “recovery” are critical components in NDPS cases. Unlike other criminal offences, crimes under the NDPS Act carry a presumption of guilt under Sections 35 and 54, making strict procedural adherence a legal necessity. This justifies the implementation of technological resources such as video cameras, body-worn cameras, GPS tracking, automated logging systems, and robotic evidence-gathering tools to ensure accountability and fairness.

Why Technology Matters

Minimises Discretion and Abuse:
Technology acts as an objective layer, reducing the possibility of false implication or evidence planting concerns often raised in NDPS litigation.

Strengthens Evidentiary Value:
Video recordings and digital documentation serve as contemporaneous and authentic evidence, enhancing the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Judicial Scrutiny Made Easier:
Courts are in a better position to assess the validity of search and recovery operations when digital records are produced as part of the evidence.

Bridges Gaps in Independent Witness Testimony:
Public witnesses are often unavailable or unwilling to participate. Technology can fill this gap by offering visual authentication and real-time recording.

Judicial Trends Promoting Transparency

Courts across the country have stressed the need for transparency in narcotics investigations, especially in cases involving commercial quantities, where bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act becomes exceptionally difficult to obtain.

The Delhi High Court, on several occasions, has observed that although not mandatory, video recording of seizure operations—particularly when conducted in public spaces—can significantly improve procedural fairness. The availability of such recordings can rebut claims of non-compliance with procedural norms such as absence of warrants or failure to include public witnesses.

Recent Judicial Ruling

In a recent case, Imran Ali @ Samir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025, the Delhi High Court reiterated that although video recording may not always be feasible, “every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation.” The Court did not invalidate the recovery merely due to the absence of videographic evidence but instead placed an increased burden on the prosecution to establish credibility and procedural compliance.

This judgment represents a balanced judicial approach—one that neither mandates technological usage as a hard rule nor overlooks its growing significance. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of using available tools to reinforce the fairness of the investigation.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite judicial encouragement, several challenges hinder the widespread use of technology in NDPS investigations:

• Infrastructure Deficit: Many law enforcement units, especially in rural and semi-urban areas, lack access to body cameras, portable recording equipment, or secure digital storage facilities.
• Training and Awareness: Investigating officers may not be adequately trained in the use of digital tools or in maintaining the integrity and chain of custody for digital evidence.

Way Forward

To ensure that technology use becomes a standard practice rather than an exception, the following measures are necessary:

• Incorporation in Police Manuals and SOPs: Standard operating procedures for NDPS cases should mandate or strongly encourage the use of video documentation.
• Legislative Guidance: Guidelines or amendments should be introduced to promote technological usage in search and seizure operations.
• Capacity Building: Training programs must be implemented to equip officers with both the tools and the knowledge necessary for effective digital evidence handling.
• Chain of Custody Protocols: Proper digital evidence management, including preservation, authentication, and presentation, should be enforced to ensure judicial acceptability.

Conclusion

In the modern age, technology has become an essential component of criminal investigation, especially under laws like the NDPS Act that necessitate strict procedural compliance. Its use is not merely beneficial but also constitutionally justified under the right to a fair investigation embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although not yet legally mandated, the Delhi High Court’s recommendation to incorporate technological tools into narcotics investigations reflects a forward-looking and balanced approach. If adopted uniformly, such practices could strengthen public trust in law enforcement, improve evidentiary integrity, and ensure that investigative processes meet the highest standards of fairness and transparency.