Harbouring or Financing Drug Offences: Section 27A of NDPS Act in Focus

This article is written by Atishay Jain, a former UPSC aspirant and a core member of the ApniLaw team. With a strong focus on criminal and regulatory law, the article offers clear insights into complex legislations like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. For any personal queries or suggestions, feel free to reach out to us through our official channel.

What Is Section 27A Of NDPS

• Section 27A of NDPS Act punishes those who finance or support drug trafficking. It targets anyone who directly or indirectly finances activities listed in clause (viiib) of Section 2. It also applies to anyone who harbours individuals involved in such activities.
• The law mandates a minimum of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The maximum term can extend to 20 years. Offenders must also pay a fine of at least one lakh rupees, which may increase up to two lakh rupees. The court may impose a higher fine if justified in its judgment.
• An amendment was made to Section 27A in 2021. The term “illicit activities” was redefined under Section 2 in 2014. However, Section 27A still referred to the old clause number even after the 2014 amendment. This mismatch caused legal confusion. The 2021 Amendment Act corrected this drafting error and aligned Section 27A with the updated clause.

Tripura High Court Judgment: How To Interpret Section 27A Of NDPS

The Tripura High Court’s ruling significantly shaped how courts interpret Section 27A of the NDPS Act. The judgment addressed a major legislative error that had legal and constitutional consequences.

1. The Court found a major anomaly. After the 2014 amendment, the definition of “illicit traffic” shifted from Section 2(viiia) to 2(viiib). But Section 27A still referred to the outdated clause. This mismatch created a legal vacuum and made the penal provision unenforceable.
2. To avoid legal collapse, the Court suggested a purposive interpretation. It advised that courts should read “Section 2(viiib)” in place of “Section 2(viiia)” in Section 27A. This ensured that offenders did not escape liability due to a technical error.
3. The Court warned of constitutional issues. It noted that vague penal provisions violate Article 20 of the Constitution. A person cannot be punished unless the law clearly defines the offense. Ambiguity in Section 27A could lead to wrongful prosecution.
4. The High Court directed the Central Government to urgently amend Section 27A. It demanded correction of the clause reference to restore legal clarity. The Court also ordered circulation of its ruling to all NDPS courts in Tripura.
5. This judgment set a strong precedent. It urged courts to adopt a purposive approach when penal laws have drafting errors. It also emphasized the judiciary’s role in maintaining rule of law and protecting constitutional rights until the legislature acts.

Rhea Chakraborty and Section 27A NDPS Act

The high-profile case involving Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty attracted nationwide attention in 2020 following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. One of the major legal aspects of this case was her alleged involvement in a drug-related conspiracy. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) arrested her under several sections of the NDPS Act, 1985, including Section 27A, which deals with the financing and harbouring of drug offenders.

In 2020, Rhea Chakraborty was accused of procuring and financing drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput. The NCB claimed she was an active member of a drug syndicate and facilitated drug delivery to the late actor. These allegations led to her arrest under multiple NDPS sections, including Section 27A.

NCB’s Allegations

The Narcotics Control Bureau contended that:

• Rhea paid for drugs.
• She arranged for their delivery through co-accused.
• She was aware of Sushant’s drug consumption and actively participated in the chain.

Based on these claims, the NCB invoked Section 27A, alleging that she financed drug trafficking activities.

• During the bail hearing, the Bombay High Court made key observations:
• The court noted that “harbouring” requires an element of protecting or shielding drug offenders from legal action.
• The court emphasized that simply arranging drugs or making payments does not constitute “financing illicit traffic” as required under Section 27A.
• It found no substantial evidence showing Rhea had directly financed or harboured drug traffickers.
• In October 2020, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Rhea Chakraborty, stating:
• There was no prima facie evidence to support the Section 27A charge.
• The material available did not meet the strict threshold required for such a grave section.
• The court differentiated consumption-related offences from financing and harbouring, which are more serious.

This case clarified the scope and limits of Section 27A:

• Merely purchasing or arranging drugs for a friend or partner does not automatically qualify as “financing illicit traffic.”
• Law enforcement must establish clear financial links and intent to support trafficking networks to invoke Section 27A.

Conclusion

Section 27A of the NDPS Act plays a critical role in India’s fight against drug trafficking. It imposes strict penalties for financing drug-related activities and for harboring offenders. This section sends a strong message that supporting drug operations in any form, financially or physically, will invite serious legal consequences.

The section carries stringent punishments, including rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 10 years, which may extend up to 20 years, along with a hefty fine. It applies not only to drug traffickers but also to those who indirectly assist them.

For individuals, businesses, and legal entities, it’s crucial to understand the gravity of this provision. Awareness and compliance with Section 27A can help prevent unintentional legal violations and contribute to a drug-free society.