Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Madras High Court which had rejected interim release of a lorry seized in an NDPS case. The Court held that the 2022 Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal Rules under the NDPS Act do not divest Special Courts of their statutory authority to grant interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (now Sections 497 and 503 BNSS). The Court clarified that NDPS Rules are subordinate legislation and cannot override the parent Act, especially Sections 60 and 63, which govern confiscation and the rights of owners. The Court found that where the owner is not accused and prima facie uninvolved, interim custody cannot be denied merely because a conveyance is “liable to confiscation”.
The Court directed release of the seized vehicle to the owner on terms to be set by the Special Court.
It held:
“Subordinate legislation cannot curtail judicial powers vested by the parent statute.”
Facts
The case concerns a transport vehicle, lawfully hired for moving 29,400 MT of iron sheets from a steel manufacturer in Chhattisgarh to a steel company in Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was driven by four transport workers engaged by the owner. During transit, police intercepted the vehicle and recovered 6 kilograms of Ganja — 1.5 kg beneath the driver’s seat and 1.5 kg each from the three other occupants. All four were arrested and chargesheeted under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
The owner of the vehicle was not arrayed as an accused and the chargesheet did not allege any complicity. Still, the vehicle remained seized. The owner sought interim release before the Special Court under Section 497 BNSS (earlier Section 451 CrPC). The Special Court refused, holding that NDPS seizures are liable to confiscation under Section 63 and cannot be released.
The owner then filed a criminal revision before the Madras High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision, stating that the 2022 NDPS Disposal Rules now confer exclusive authority on the Drug Disposal Committee to deal with the disposal of seized conveyances, implying that even interim release cannot be ordered by courts.
Aggrieved, the owner approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the 2022 NDPS Disposal Rules supersede the power of Special Courts to grant interim custody of seized conveyances.
- Whether courts retain jurisdiction under Sections 451/457 CrPC (497/503 BNSS) despite the Rules.
- Whether a vehicle can be denied interim release merely because it is “liable to confiscation” under Section 60 NDPS.
- Whether an innocent owner not arrayed as accused is entitled to interim release pending trial.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the High Court erred in holding that the Drug Disposal Committee has exclusive jurisdiction. It was submitted that the parent statute, particularly Sections 60 and 63 NDPS, clearly vests confiscation authority in the Special Court, not in any administrative committee. The 2022 Rules cannot override these provisions.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, which held that conveyances seized under the NDPS Act may be released on interim custody where the owner is prima facie uninvolved, and that the Act does not bar exercise of Section 451/457 CrPC powers.
The petitioner pointed out that he is the lawful owner and the vehicle was transporting a valuable consignment; he had no motive to jeopardize his business by permitting carriage of narcotics. The drivers and helpers acted without his knowledge. Thus, denial of interim custody was unjust, illegal, and disproportionate.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the High Court was correct because the 2022 NDPS Rules now entrust the Drug Disposal Committee with disposal of seized articles, including conveyances. It was argued that Bishwajit Dey does not consider the 2022 Rules and is per incuriam to that extent. As the vehicle is liable for confiscation, release should not be granted. The State contended that the Rules contemplate disposal only after receipt of chemical analysis report and Committee approval, and therefore courts cannot intervene.
Analysis of the Law
The Court carefully analysed the 2022 NDPS Rules, especially Rules 17, 20, 21 and 22. The Court noted that these Rules govern only initiation and procedure of disposal after chemical analysis. They do not provide any mechanism for an owner to seek release. More importantly, they do not confer adjudicatory authority on the Committee.
The Court reiterated settled law:
- Rules cannot override the Act.
- Confiscation is a judicial function governed by Sections 60 and 63 NDPS.
- Confiscation cannot occur without hearing the owner.
- Special Courts retain full authority to apply CrPC/BNSS for interim custody unless expressly excluded.
The Court held that Sections 36-C and 51 NDPS explicitly apply CrPC/BNSS provisions to NDPS proceedings unless inconsistent. Nothing in the Act bars interim custody.
The 2022 Rules merely prescribe procedures for disposal; they cannot divest Special Courts of jurisdiction.
Precedent Analysis
1. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 INSC 32)
The Court had categorised four scenarios of seizure from conveyances and held that in cases where the owner is not accused (scenarios 3 and 4), interim release should normally be granted.
2. Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal (2025)
This judgment clarified that confiscation can only occur after trial, and even then only after hearing the owner. Therefore, denial of interim custody is unjustified where the owner shows lack of connection.
3. Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1
The Court relied on this decision to reaffirm:
“Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond or be inconsistent with the parent statute.”
These precedents guided the Court to conclude that the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted to oust judicial powers.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the High Court’s view that the Drug Disposal Committee has exclusive jurisdiction is fundamentally flawed. The 2022 Rules are procedural and cannot override statutory safeguards provided under Sections 60(3) and 63.
The Court emphasised that confiscation is a serious deprivation of property, permissible only after trial, not before. Interim release does not frustrate confiscation because courts can impose conditions, including requiring the owner to produce the vehicle or its value.
Applying the facts, the Court found:
- The owner was not an accused.
- Drivers alone possessed the contraband.
- The vehicle carried high-value goods, making intentional misuse improbable.
- No allegation of conspiracy or knowledge existed.
- Facts fit within Bishwajit Dey’s principles favouring interim release.
Thus, the vehicle must be returned.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the High Court judgment.
- Held that Special Courts retain full power under Sections 451/457 CrPC (497/503 BNSS) to grant interim custody.
- Clarified that the 2022 Rules cannot override NDPS Act provisions governing confiscation or owners’ rights.
- Directed release of the seized vehicle to the appellant on conditions to be imposed by the Special Court.
- Allowed the appeal.
Implications
- The judgment protects innocent owners from prolonged loss of property in NDPS cases.
- It clarifies that NDPS Disposal Rules do not oust judicial power, preventing administrative overreach.
- Special Courts nationwide can continue considering applications for interim release.
- The ruling prevents absurd results such as owners suffering losses for years awaiting chemical reports.
- It strengthens the requirement that confiscation must follow due process and judicial hearing.