Section 82: Repeal and savings

(1) The Opium Act, 1857 (13 of 1857), the Opium Act, 1878 (1 of 1878) and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (2 of 1930) are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under any of the enactments repealed by sub-section (1) shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

Simplified Explanation

This section deals with the repeal of previous narcotic laws and ensures that actions taken under those laws remain valid even after their repeal, provided they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Key Provisions of Section 82:

1. Repeal of Earlier Laws:
   • The section repeals three earlier acts related to narcotics:
     • The Opium Act, 1857 (13 of 1857)
     • The Opium Act, 1878 (1 of 1878)
     • The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (2 of 1930)
2. This means that these laws are no longer in force and are superseded by the provisions of the NDPS Act.
3. Savings Clause:
   • Despite the repeal of these older acts, any action or thing done under the provisions of those laws, prior to the enactment of the NDPS Act, remains valid.
   • This ensures continuity of legal processes, meaning that if there were actions taken (such as licensing, enforcement actions, or penalties) under the repealed laws that are in line with the NDPS Act, those actions are treated as if they were taken under the corresponding provisions of the new law.
4. Consistency with NDPS Act:
   • The saved actions or decisions are only valid as long as they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. If an action taken under the old laws conflicts with the NDPS Act, it would not be considered valid after the repeal.

Implications of Section 82:

1. Legal Continuity:
   • The repeal of the Opium Acts and the Dangerous Drugs Act does not affect actions or legal proceedings that were already carried out under these laws. This ensures that transitional issues do not arise and provides a smooth shift from the older laws to the NDPS Act.
2. No Need for Repetitive Actions:
   • For actions done under the repealed laws, there is no need for new proceedings or actions under the NDPS Act. As long as the action is consistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act, it is deemed valid. For example, if someone was granted a license under the Opium Act, 1878, this action will continue to have effect under the new NDPS Act, provided it aligns with the new rules.
3. Ensures Legal Consistency:
   • The savings clause ensures that previous actions, such as the forfeiture of property or imposition of penalties under the repealed laws, remain valid unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Example:

• If a person was convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, for possessing narcotic drugs, and that conviction was carried out in accordance with the legal provisions of the old law, the conviction would not be rendered invalid due to the repeal of the law. It would be considered as if the conviction had occurred under the corresponding provisions of the NDPS Act, provided the actions were not inconsistent with the new law.

Conclusion:

Section 82 serves a transitional purpose by ensuring that the repeal of earlier narcotics laws does not create legal disruption. It validates actions taken under the Opium Act, 1857, Opium Act, 1878, and Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, provided they are consistent with the NDPS Act. This ensures a smooth transition and continuity in enforcement and legal proceedings related to narcotics control.