Special Court Retains Power To Order Interim Release Of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Rules; Vehicle Ordered Released On Supurdagi

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by special leave challenging the Madurai High Court’s refusal to grant interim custody of a lorry seized during an NDPS case and examined whether the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 ousted the jurisdiction of the Special Court to entertain applications for interim release of seized conveyances.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the Rules of 2022 could not be read as divesting the Special Courts of their statutory jurisdiction under the NDPS Act and directed release of the seized vehicle on supurdagi to its owner subject to such terms as the Special Court might impose. The Court emphasised that the Rules were “supplemental to the scheme of disposal contemplated under the NDPS Act” and that “the Rules being subordinate legislation, cannot supersede the provisions of the parent legislation.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that Rule 22 of the Rules of 2022 was directory and not intended to oust judicial scrutiny.

Background

The owner-appellant challenged the continued seizure of his Ashok Leyland 14-wheeler (Reg. No. TN 52 Q 0315), which had been hired to carry 29,400 MT of iron sheets from Chhattisgarh to Ranipet, after police intercepted the vehicle on July 14, 2024 and recovered 6 kgs of ganja from four persons in the vehicle. The owner was not arraigned in the chargesheet. The Special Court dismissed the owner’s interim release application under Sections 451/452 CrPC (Sections 497/498 BNSS) on the ground that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under Section 63 of the NDPS Act and that disposal and release fell within the remit of the Drug Disposal Committee constituted under the Rules of 2022. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected the owner’s revision petition, adopting the view that the Rules vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Drug Disposal Committee.

The appellant relied on this Court’s earlier ruling in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam that identified scenarios where interim release on superdari could be appropriate. The State countered that Bishwajit Dey did not consider the Rules of 2022 and that those Rules must be held to control disposal and interim release procedures.

The Supreme Court analysed the Rules of 2022 alongside Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act and relevant CrPC provisions. It held that while the Rules provided procedural steps for disposal and empowered the Drug Disposal Committee to order disposal of conveyances up to a specified value, they were subordinate and “supplemental” to the parent statute and did not oust the adjudicatory role of the Special Court in confiscation proceedings. The Court reaffirmed that Section 60(3) permitted confiscation subject to the owner proving absence of knowledge or connivance, and Section 63 required the court to decide confiscation after affording the claimant an opportunity of hearing. Applying the principles in Bishwajit Dey, the Court found the factual matrix indicated the appellant’s bona fides — he owned the vehicle, was not charged, and the contraband was recovered from four occupants — and directed that the vehicle be released on supurdagi subject to conditions the Special Court might impose. The High Court order dated December 20, 2024 was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1258 Case Title: Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported judgment