The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, do not divest Special Courts under the NDPS Act of their jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized vehicles.
In the judgment for Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025), a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Madras High Court order that had rejected an owner’s plea for the interim release of his lorry. The Court held that the 2022 Rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot supersede the procedural safeguards and judicial powers established in the parent NDPS Act.
The appeal was filed by Denash, assailing a judgment dated December 20, 2024, from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which had rejected his prayer for interim custody of his lorry (Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315).
Background of the Case
The appellant, Denash, is the owner of the vehicle in question, an Ashok Leyland 14-wheeler. The vehicle was lawfully hired to transport 29,400 MT of iron sheets from M/s S.S. Steel and Power, Chhattisgarh, to Ashok Steels, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was assigned to four crew members: driver Kannan @ Venkatesan (accused No. 1), Deva (accused No. 2), Senthamalivalavan (accused No. 3), and Tamil Selvan (accused No. 4).
On July 14, 2024, officers of the Police Station Neyveli Township intercepted and searched the vehicle. During the search, 1.5 kilograms of Ganja was found concealed beneath the driver’s seat, and an additional 1.5 kilograms was recovered from the personal possession of each of the other three accused, totaling 6 kilograms of seized Ganja.
Consequently, First Information Report (FIR) No. 220 of 2024 was registered at P.S. Neyveli Township for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A chargesheet was filed against the four accused persons present in the vehicle. The judgment noted, “It is important to note that the appellant was not arraigned as an accused in the report.”
Proceedings in Lower Courts
The appellant moved an application (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5495 of 2024) under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Section 497, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)] before the Special Court (Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur) seeking interim release (supurdagi) of the vehicle.
On September 9, 2024, the Special Court dismissed the application. It held that a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act was liable to confiscation under Section 63 of the Act and was not amenable to interim release under Sections 451 and 452 of the CrPC.
The appellant challenged this order before the Madras High Court. The High Court, in its judgment dated December 20, 2024, rejected the revision. It held that following the introduction of the 2022 Rules, the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) “alone had the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disposal of the property,” including conveyances. The High Court presumed the Committee was also empowered to consider requests for interim release.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant argued that the issue was “squarely covered” by the recent decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 INSC 32), which outlined scenarios for the interim release of vehicles in NDPS cases.
The State of Tamil Nadu, supporting the High Court’s judgment, contended that the Bishwajit Dey decision did not consider the 2022 Rules and its ratio should be declared per incuriam (through lack of care) or sub silentio (in silence) regarding the release of vehicles.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, in the judgment authored by Justice Mehta, conducted a detailed analysis of the 2022 Rules and the NDPS Act.
2022 Rules are Subordinate to the NDPS Act The Court observed that the 2022 Rules are “subordinate legislation” and “cannot supersede the provisions of the parent legislation, i.e., the NDPS Act.” It noted that the Rules (Rule 17) state disposal proceedings are initiated by the police after receiving the chemical analysis report, and the Rules are “notably silent on the rights of persons whose property is affected by such disposal.”
Power of Confiscation Vests with the Court The judgment emphasized the distinction between disposal by the DDC and judicial confiscation under the Act. It referred to Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, which states a conveyance is liable to confiscation “unless the owner… proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner… and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”
Furthermore, Section 63 mandates that the Court shall decide on confiscation and explicitly provides (in its proviso) that no order can be made “without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto.”
The Supreme Court held (Para 21): “…a conjoint and holistic reading of Sections 60(3) and 63, makes it abundantly clear that the power to determine whether or not a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act and not in any administrative or executive authority such as the Drug Disposal Committee.”
Applicability of CrPC The Court affirmed that Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act expressly make the provisions of the CrPC (including Sections 451 and 457 for interim property disposal) applicable to proceedings before the Special Court.
The Court stated (Para 28): “…the mere fact that a vehicle may be liable to confiscation under Section 60 cannot, by itself, operate to deny interim custody to a bona fide owner.”
High Court Interpretation ‘Unsustainable’ The Supreme Court explicitly overruled the High Court’s interpretation: “Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC…” (Para 29).
The bench concluded (Para 30): “…we are of the considered view that the interpretation given by the High Court… is unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
Application to the Appellant’s Case Applying the law to the facts, the Court found the appellant was the vehicle’s true owner, it was lawfully engaged in transporting 29,400 MT of iron sheets, and the appellant himself was not chargesheeted.
The Court inferred (Para 31): “As a necessary corollary, it can safely be presumed that the said contraband must have been procured by the drivers and/or the khalasis without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant.”
It further observed (Para 32) that “it does not stand to reason that the appellant, being the owner thereof, would knowingly jeopardize his business and property by permitting the transportation of 6 kilograms of Ganja alongside such valuable cargo.”
While the case technically resembled the second scenario in Bishwajit Dey (recovery from an agent/driver), the Court found the “peculiar factual matrix warrants a more pragmatic approach,” citing the appellant’s “bonafides and absence of any involvement” (Para 35).
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated December 20, 2024.
The Court directed that the vehicle (Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315) “shall be released on supurdagi to the appellant on such terms and conditions, which the Special Court may impose.”
