Published Apr 05, 2026 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 05, 2026 | 8:00 AM
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Kerala High Court has drawn a harder line on drug offences, closing the space that repeat offenders once relied on. The court has made it clear that repeatedly getting caught with even small quantities is no longer a minor matter—those who engage in it can now be labelled a “goonda” under KAAPA, bringing the risk of preventive detention and tighter surveillance. A larger bench has treated repetition—not just quantity—as the real concern.
In a significant tightening of the state’s anti-drug framework, the Kerala High Court has made it clear that repeat offenders cannot hide behind the “small quantity” loophole any longer.
Even possession of minor quantities, if habitual, can now invite the harsh tag of a ‘goonda’ under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA), opening the door to preventive detention and sweeping restrictions.
The ruling emerges against a troubling backdrop. A creeping, almost casual belief—especially among the young—that getting caught with drugs is little more than a fine and a warning. Pay, walk away, and repeat. That illusion, the court noted, has quietly deepened the roots of the drug problem across society.
Five judges who examined the issue concluded that every offence matters, whether small or substantial, and that it requires zero tolerance and no negotiation.
There was more. A nudge, not an order. That even first-time offenders, they indicated, should be brought under medical evaluation and rehabilitation frameworks where feasible; repeat offenders, more so.
For enforcement agencies, the ruling changes the operational landscape. Officers now see wider room to act—preventive detention, restrictions on movement, even property seizure in appropriate cases.
The issue traces its roots to a 2014 ruling in Ashraf vs. Inspector General of Police, where a Division Bench had held that mere possession of prohibited drugs could classify an individual as a “drug offender” under KAAPA. That interpretation did not sit easily with another line of judgments, prompting a reference to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict.
At the heart of the debate stood a seemingly narrow but consequential question: can repeated possession of small quantities—treated more leniently under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, —justify branding someone a “goonda” and subjecting them to preventive detention?
Those opposing such a move argued that “small quantity” offences, carrying lighter punishment, are often linked to addiction or casual use. Branding such individuals as “goondas,” it was contended, risks pushing them further to the margins, undermining chances of rehabilitation.
The state, however, pressed a different concern. Public prosecutors pointed to KAAPA’s underlying purpose—prevention, not punishment. The law, they argued, is designed to step in before patterns harden into threats to public order. The definition of “goonda” under the Act, which includes “drug offenders,” was deliberately framed widely to capture precisely such emerging risks.
The Bench appears to have leaned firmly toward that view.
In a sharply worded judgment on 31 March, written jointly by Justices Devan Ramachandran, Gopinath P, A Badharudeen, M B Snehalatha and Jobin Sebastian, the court spoke at length about the cascading impact of drug abuse.
What begins as personal use rarely remains confined, the court noted. Families fracture. Financial strain follows. Communities absorb the fallout in the form of rising crime, strained healthcare systems, and a gradual erosion of public safety.
There was little ambiguity in the court’s tone. Even small quantities, it is observed, cannot be treated with indulgence when patterns of repeated possession emerge. Such conduct, the Bench reasoned, signals something deeper—recurring behaviour that carries unpredictability, feeding a sense of unease among the public.
The argument that small-quantity offences amount to “petty offences” did not find favour either. The court pointed out that under the law, a petty offence is one punishable with a fine alone. Offences under the NDPS Act, regardless of quantity, carry the possibility of imprisonment. That distinction, the Bench made clear, cannot be brushed aside.
Preventive detention under KAAPA, in that light, was framed not as excessive but, in some cases, even less severe than the punishment that could follow a second conviction under the NDPS Act. The difference lies in timing—KAAPA intervenes before further offences occur.
What weighed heavily in the ruling was the idea of recurrence. A single instance may stand on a different footing. Repetition changes the equation. The court suggested that when individuals are repeatedly found in possession—even of small quantities—it reflects a pattern that society cannot afford to ignore.
At the heart of the shift is the increasing reliance on preventive detention under KAAPA, a law that functions very differently from the NDPS Act. The distinction is not merely technical.
Under the NDPS framework, even repeat offenders walk free until guilt is established in court. That process takes time—sometimes years. KAAPA, by contrast, steps in earlier. It allows authorities to detain individuals not for what has been conclusively proven, but for what they are likely to do next.
On paper, the detention period under KAAPA is shorter. In practice, its immediacy changes the equation.
Law enforcement officers gave a glimpse into the ground reality. There has been, especially among younger individuals, a growing belief that being caught with small quantities of drugs carries little real consequence. A warning, perhaps a case, and then a return to routine life. That perception has hardened into a kind of quiet confidence.
Officials, pointing to the larger bench verdict, stated that KAAPA disrupts that rhythm.
Once a person is flagged as engaging in “anti-social activity”—a term broad enough to include drug-related offences even at a minor level—the response does not stop at a single case. Names are entered into a Register of Anti-Socials. Surveillance follows. Weekly checks become routine. Movements are noted, patterns tracked, and associations observed.
Officers describe a system in which individuals are not just prosecuted but also watched. A separate history sheet is maintained. Cases are less likely to be dropped quietly at the station level. The idea is to ensure that repeat behaviour does not slip through procedural cracks.
There are other tools too. Restrictions on movement. Mandatory reporting of residence. In certain cases, even property-related actions. Not all are used every time, but their availability adds weight to enforcement.
Detention, however, remains the most serious step—and the most carefully handled. The paperwork is extensive, the scrutiny high. Officials admit it is not invoked lightly. Yet its presence alters behaviour even when it is not used.
An official who was part of the Anti-Goonda Squad told South First that legal provisions under Sections 3, 15, and 17 of KAAPA come into play depending on the situation.
“Detention remains the strongest measure, but not the only one. Authorities can require individuals to report their place of residence, restrict their movement, or, in certain cases, take property-related actions where the law permits. Those flagged cannot easily slip back into routine anonymity. It’s simply an intervention before escalation,” he said.
However, the officer added, “Whether it ultimately reduces drug activity is a question that will take time to answer. The message is no longer just about penalties after proof. It is about consequences before the next move is made.”
Kerala has long been pressing the Centre to revisit the NDPS Act—arguing that the current framework, especially the thresholds for “small quantity,” is letting traffickers slip through the cracks. The state has pushed for tougher provisions, including making certain offences non-bailable, pointing out how offenders routinely secure bail under the existing limits.
Meanwhile, there is another side also.
In its report tabled in the Assembly, the Comptroller and Auditor General flagged serious lapses in how ‘small quantity’ drug cases are handled. The Excise department, it noted, often stops at the surface—failing to pursue deeper investigations that could expose supply networks.
The numbers are telling. Across 1,596 such cases, authorities invoked only the basic possession-related sections—20, 21 and 22. None of the broader penal provisions, from Sections 27 to 31, was mentioned. Those sections deal with abetment, conspiracy, and other links in the chain.
What gets lost, the audit suggests, is the bigger picture. Petty offenders are booked. The system moves on. Meanwhile, those higher up—organisers, suppliers, financiers—remain untouched.
The report is blunt: by avoiding thorough probes, enforcement agencies are allowing the problem to grow. Cases pile up. The network adapts. The source remains intact. And the cycle continues.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
