Special Courts Retain Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Custody of NDPS-Seized Vehicles notwithstanding the 2022 Disposal Rules

Case: Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 INSC 1258

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Date: 27 October 2025

Bench: Vikram Nath, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J. (Judgment delivered by Mehta, J.)

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of India’s reportable decision in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, which resolves an important procedural and substantive tension between the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (the 2022 Rules). The central question was whether the promulgation of the 2022 Rules—particularly the Drug Disposal Committee’s mandate—divested Special Courts of their power to grant interim custody (supurdagi) of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act by invoking the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provisions (now re-enacted in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, BNSS).

The appellant, owner of a 14-wheeler Ashok Leyland lorry (TN 52 Q 0315), hired the vehicle to transport 29,400 MT of iron sheets from Chhattisgarh to Tamil Nadu. During transit, police recovered a total of 6 kg of Ganja: 1.5 kg from under the driver’s seat and 1.5 kg each from the possession of the three other occupants. All four occupants were arrested and chargesheeted for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The owner was not arrayed as an accused in the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC [now Section 193(3) BNSS].

The Special Court refused interim release of the vehicle on the ground that conveyances seized under the NDPS Act are liable to confiscation under Section 63 and therefore not amenable to release under Sections 451/452 CrPC [now Sections 497/498 BNSS]. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) affirmed, holding that the Drug Disposal Committee under the 2022 Rules had exclusive jurisdiction over disposal of seized property, including conveyances, and could be approached for interim release as well. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses that approach and clarifies the legal position with systemic consequences for NDPS litigation nationwide.

Summary of the Judgment

The 2022 Rules are subordinate legislation made to carry out Section 52A of the NDPS Act and cannot override or curtail the substantive scheme of the parent statute (NDPS Act).
Rule 17 vests initiation of disposal with the officer-in-charge or an officer under Section 53 NDPS Act only after receipt of the chemical analysis report. The Rules do not contemplate applications by owners for “release.”
Rule 22 permits (does not mandate) the Drug Disposal Committee to order disposal within specified quantity/value thresholds. The Rule is directory and supplemental.
Sections 60(3) and 63 NDPS Act were emphasized:
- Section 60(3): A conveyance is liable to confiscation unless the owner proves absence of knowledge/connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken.
- Section 63: Only the Court trying the offense decides confiscation, and only after giving a hearing to any person claiming rights in the seized property.
Sections 36-C and 51 NDPS Act import CrPC/BNSS procedures unless inconsistent. Consequently, Special Courts retain powers under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 BNSS] to grant interim custody pending trial.
The Drug Disposal Committee has no authority to adjudicate claims of ownership or to substitute for judicial determination by the Special Court; it cannot unilaterally determine the fate of a vehicle where an owner asserts a defence under Section 60(3).
The Court reaffirmed the approach in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 INSC 32) concerning interim release of NDPS-seized vehicles and applied the principles flexibly given the facts.
Applying the four-scenario framework from Bishwajit Dey and acknowledging the owner’s non-implication, absence of allegations of knowledge, and the commercial context, the Court directed interim release (supurdagi) of the vehicle on terms to be imposed by the Special Court.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1 (para 29): The Court invoked this settled principle to reiterate that rules framed under a statute are designed to carry out the purposes of the Act and cannot travel beyond or be inconsistent with it. This authority undergirds the conclusion that the 2022 Rules cannot override the NDPS Act’s confiscation scheme or the Special Court’s powers.
Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 32: The Supreme Court’s recent framework identifies four broad scenarios of contraband recovery from a conveyance and a corresponding approach to interim release:
1. Owner himself in possession;
2. Contraband from owner’s agent (e.g., driver/cleaner) who is arrayed as accused;
3. Vehicle stolen and used by accused;
4. Contraband with third-party occupants; no allegation of owner’s knowledge/connivance.
Generally, interim release is more readily justified in scenarios (3) and (4), while in (1) and (2) cautious approach is warranted. The present case appears superficially to fit (2), yet given absence of any allegation against the owner and his non-implication, the Court adopted a pragmatic deviation and allowed interim custody.
Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2025: Reaffirmed that confiscation of a seized vehicle can be ordered by the Trial Court only upon conclusion of trial (conviction/acquittal/discharge), after granting hearing to any claimant. It also emphasizes that a vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner proves absence of knowledge/connivance and reasonable precautions. This decision supports the notion that interim custody can and should be considered pending final adjudication, especially for innocent owners.

2) Legal Reasoning and Statutory Construction

The Court’s interpretive method integrates the text of the 2022 Rules with the NDPS Act’s substantive safeguards and the procedural conduits of CrPC/BNSS.

Subordinate Legislation’s Limits: By applying Sanjeev V. Deshpande, the Court stressed that the 2022 Rules (made under Section 52A NDPS Act to manage seizure, storage, sampling, and disposal) cannot override rights and procedures embedded in the NDPS Act. The Rules address disposal logistics but do not empower the Drug Disposal Committee to adjudicate ownership disputes or supplant courts.
Rules 17, 20–23 of the 2022 Rules:
- Rule 17: Only the officer-in-charge (or Section 53 officer) initiates disposal, and only after receipt of the chemical analysis report. Owners/claimants are not contemplated as applicants to this process.
- Rule 22: The Drug Disposal Committee “can” order disposal up to specified quantity/value limits (including “conveyances up to a value of Rs. 50 lakhs”). The permissive “can” indicates directory power, reinforcing that this mechanism is supplemental, not exclusive.
- Rule 23(5)(e): For conveyances, the Committee’s mode of disposal is “tender or auction.” This is a post-adjudicatory or administrative disposal modality; it does not adjudicate confiscation or resolve property rights where an owner asserts a defence under Section 60(3).
Sections 60(3) and 63 NDPS Act: The Confiscation Framework:
- Section 60(3) places a conditional liability to confiscate: owners can avoid confiscation by proving lack of knowledge/connivance and demonstrating reasonable precautions.
- Section 63 vests the confiscation decision in the Court trying the offense, mandates an opportunity of hearing to any claimant, and precludes administrative bodies like the Drug Disposal Committee from unilaterally determining confiscation where rights are asserted.
CrPC/BNSS Procedural Overlay (Sections 36-C and 51 NDPS Act): The NDPS Act imports CrPC/BNSS procedure where not inconsistent. Hence, Special Courts retain power under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC [now Sections 497 and 503 BNSS] to order interim custody. Given the absence of any express bar in the NDPS Act, the potential for ultimate confiscation under Section 60 does not, by itself, foreclose interim release to a bona fide owner.
Rejection of Exclusive DDC Jurisdiction: The High Court’s view that the 2022 Rules created exclusive DDC jurisdiction is inconsistent with Section 63’s judicial adjudication mandate and the owner’s Section 60(3) defence. The Rules cannot silently extinguish statutory rights and natural justice safeguards.
Operational Pragmatism and Natural Justice: The Court further invoked common-sense hypotheticals—stolen vehicles or misuse by drivers without owners’ knowledge—and reasoned that forcing owners to await chemical analysis and seek relief from a non-adjudicatory committee would be unjust and contrary to the Act’s structure.

3) Application to the Present Facts

Owner not arrayed as an accused; no allegations of knowledge/connivance in the chargesheet.
Contraband recovered from the four accused occupants; not from the owner.
The vehicle was on a commercial assignment carrying valuable cargo; it would be implausible for the owner to jeopardize property and goodwill by facilitating transport of 6 kg Ganja.
Although the scenario superficially resembled “scenario (2)” in Bishwajit Dey (contraband from owner’s agent), the Court emphasized that criminal law is not applied mechanically; on these facts, a flexible approach favored interim release.

4) Impact and Prospective Significance

This decision clarifies the institutional roles under the NDPS regime and will likely shape trial practice and administrative processes across the country.

For Special Courts: Clear affirmation of jurisdiction to entertain and decide interim custody applications for seized conveyances under Sections 451/457 CrPC [497/503 BNSS], regardless of the 2022 Rules. Courts must evaluate ownership claims, knowledge/connivance, and reasonable precautions before deciding custody.
For Law Enforcement: The 2022 Rules still govern seizure, storage, sampling, inventory certification (Section 52A), and disposal initiation through the DDC after chemical analysis. However, if an owner seeks interim custody, that question is for the Special Court, not the DDC.
For the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC): The DDC’s function is post-inventory disposal via auction/tender or destruction in line with the Rules. It is not a forum for adjudicating ownership rights or interim release disputes.
For Vehicle Owners/Transporters: Innocent owners can seek interim release without waiting for chemical analysis or DDC action, by moving the Special Court with documentation and a defence under Section 60(3). This mitigates the commercial and economic hardship of prolonged seizure.
Systemic Efficiency: The decision avoids duplicative or misplaced administrative processes, ensures judicial scrutiny of property rights, and reduces the risk of unjust deprivation under Article 300A’s property protection ethos (though not expressly invoked in the judgment).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supurdagi/Interim Custody: Temporary release of seized property to the owner or custodian during pendency of proceedings, subject to conditions (bond/undertakings) to produce the property when directed and to preserve its condition/value.
Confiscation vs. Disposal: Confiscation is a judicial determination (by the Special Court under Section 63) that property is forfeited to the State. Disposal (under the 2022 Rules) refers to the practical steps for storage, auction, or destruction; it is an administrative function post-inventory and subject to the court’s adjudicatory primacy.
Section 60(3) NDPS Act Defence: Even if a vehicle was used to carry contraband, the owner can avoid confiscation by proving absence of knowledge/connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken (e.g., driver vetting, route instructions, seal checks).
CrPC vs. BNSS: The BNSS re-enacts several CrPC provisions with new numbering:
- CrPC Section 451 → BNSS Section 497 (interim custody/disposal of property pending trial)
- CrPC Section 457 → BNSS Section 503 (procedure when seizure is reported to Magistrate)
- CrPC Section 173(2) → BNSS Section 193(3) (final report/chargesheet)
Per incuriam/Sub silentio: Labels used to argue that a precedent is not binding either due to ignorance of relevant law (per incuriam) or because the point was not consciously decided (sub silentio). The State’s invitation to treat Bishwajit Dey as per incuriam on vehicle release was rejected by applying and harmonizing that decision with the 2022 Rules.
“Can” vs. “Shall” in Delegated Legislation: Use of “can” (Rule 22) denotes permissive, directory power, undermining any claim of exclusivity or compulsion that would displace the parent statute’s adjudicatory scheme.

Practical Guidance for Trial Courts and Stakeholders

The judgment implies the following operational protocol when a Section 497 BNSS (451 CrPC) application seeks interim release of an NDPS-seized conveyance:

Verify Ownership and Status: RC, insurance, permits, invoices/consignment notes, driver assignment records, and any transport contracts.
Check the Chargesheet (193(3) BNSS): Is the owner arrayed as an accused? Are there allegations of knowledge/connivance?
Apply Section 60(3) NDPS: Assess the owner’s prima facie defence of absence of knowledge/connivance and reasonable precautions. Consider the four-scenario framework from Bishwajit Dey with necessary flexibility.
Record Condition and Identity: Ensure inventory under Section 52A NDPS (engine/chassis numbers), photographs/videography, and panchnama to preserve evidentiary value.
Impose Tailored Conditions: Production of vehicle as and when required; non-alienation; no structural change; roadworthiness; periodic inspection; personal bond/surety/bank guarantee proportionate to assessed value; undertaking to pay value if later confiscated; intimation of change of address.
Balance Competing Interests: Protect bona fide property rights and commercial use while preserving the integrity of evidence and the possibility of ultimate confiscation upon trial conclusion.

Why the Decision Matters

Reasserts Judicial Primacy: Confiscation is a judicial act requiring a hearing; administrative disposal powers cannot be read to eclipse court jurisdiction over property rights.
Prevents Hardship to Innocent Owners: Owners need not await chemical analysis or navigate a non-adjudicatory route through the DDC for interim relief.
Harmonizes the Legal Framework: Seamlessly integrates the 2022 Rules with the NDPS Act and BNSS, avoiding interpretive conflicts and ensuring natural justice.
Refines Bishwajit Dey’s Matrix: Signals flexibility in the “scenario (2)” category where the owner is not chargesheeted and no knowledge/connivance is alleged.

Conclusion

Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu settles a crucial question in NDPS jurisprudence: the 2022 Disposal Rules do not divest Special Courts of their entrenched power to grant interim custody of seized vehicles under Sections 451/457 CrPC [497/503 BNSS]. Confiscation decisions remain the Special Court’s preserve and must be taken after a fair hearing under Section 63 NDPS, with the owner’s Section 60(3) defence duly considered. The Drug Disposal Committee’s role is supplemental and administrative, directed towards post-inventory disposal; it is not an adjudicatory forum for property disputes.

On the facts, with no allegations against the owner and the vehicle being used for a legitimate commercial consignment, the Supreme Court appropriately set aside the High Court’s contrary view and ordered interim release on terms to be set by the Special Court. The ruling restores balance between efficient narcotics enforcement and protection of bona fide property rights, aligning subordinate legislation with the parent statute and reaffirming the foundational norms of natural justice.

Special Courts Retain Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Custody of NDPS-Seized Vehicles notwithstanding the 2022 Disposal Rules — Commentary on Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 1258