Supreme Court holds NDPS Act applies to all scheduled substances, rejects plea to limit it to Rule-based list
- Chintan Shah
- 6 days ago
- 4 min read
Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 17 April 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Acts & Sections Involved:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 8, 22, 29)
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 216)
Cited Judgements:
Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1
State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2007) 1 SCC 355
Rajender Gupta v. State, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 873
K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2283
Introduction
The Supreme Court, in this landmark ruling, has decisively settled the long-standing legal conundrum concerning the applicability of the NDPS Act to psychotropic substances that appear in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, but are absent from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, 1985. The dispute centred on whether unauthorised dealing in such substances constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the Act.
This judgement is particularly important for both investigative authorities and the judiciary, as it redefines the interpretation of "psychotropic substance" in the context of legislative intent and international obligations.
Background of the Case
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted a raid in 2003 and recovered over 40,000 ampoules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride from Raj Kumar Arora and others. The accused did not possess the requisite licence to store or transport the drug. The matter initially proceeded under the NDPS Act, but was later transferred to a Magistrate’s court after both the Trial Court and High Court held that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, though listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, was not covered under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, and hence, the NDPS Act was not attracted.
The High Court heavily relied on earlier decisions in Rajender Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Gupta, both of which interpreted the legislative framework narrowly, favouring the defence.
Legal Questions Before the Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Court framed three principal issues:
Whether unauthorised dealings in substances listed in the NDPS Act, but not in the NDPS Rules, amount to an offence under Section 8(c)?
Whether the ruling in Sanjeev V. Deshpande should be applied prospectively?
Whether charges framed under Section 228 CrPC can later be deleted under Section 216 CrPC?
Key Observations and Reasoning
1. Scope of Section 8(c) – Holistic Interpretation
Justice Pardiwala emphatically held:
“The term ‘psychotropic substance’ in Section 8 must be read with Section 2(xxiii), which includes all substances listed in the Schedule to the Act – and not just Schedule I of the Rules.”
This interpretation widens the ambit of the law and rejects the High Court’s restrictive approach. The Court reaffirmed that the NDPS Act, being a special legislation with overriding effect, cannot be diluted by rules framed under it unless explicitly stated.
Furthermore, the Court examined international obligations under the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, which India has ratified. It noted that Buprenorphine is listed under Schedule III of the Convention and therefore is subject to controlled distribution.
2. Prospective Overruling – Not Applicable
While discussing Sanjeev V. Deshpande, the Court noted that:
“An overruling decision generally operates retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.”
Hence, the judgment in Sanjeev V. Deshpande, which clarified the applicability of Section 8(c) to all substances under the NDPS Act Schedule, would apply to this case, despite earlier High Court decisions to the contrary. The plea for prospective overruling was summarily rejected.
3. Section 216 CrPC – Misuse Highlighted
On the invocation of Section 216 CrPC by the accused to alter charges post-framing, the Court remarked:
“Section 216 is not to be used as a second attempt at discharge.”
Referring to K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it was clarified that once charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC, the recourse to Section 216 must be sparing and strictly within procedural confines. The respondents’ application to shift proceedings under the D&C Act was labelled as a calculated manoeuvre to derail the NDPS proceedings.
Implications of the Judgement
This ruling will have significant implications:
Clarity on legal interpretation: It clarifies that all psychotropic substances listed in the NDPS Act Schedule fall within its regulatory ambit, regardless of their inclusion in the NDPS Rules.
Guidance for prosecution: Enforcement agencies can proceed under the NDPS Act without needing to establish Rule-based inclusion, provided the substance is scheduled in the Act.
Judicial precedent: High Courts are now bound to follow this interpretation and not rely solely on Rajesh Kumar Gupta or Rajender Gupta.
Reinforces international alignment: The judgement ensures Indian law stays consistent with the international drug control framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. is a seminal verdict that has settled divergent legal views prevalent in various High Courts. It firmly reinstates the intention behind the NDPS Act – that it is a strict regulatory mechanism not to be subverted by procedural or interpretational loopholes.
By restoring the primacy of the Act over its Rules, and over subordinate legislation like the D&C Act where conflicts arise, the Court has underscored its commitment to a robust legal framework for narcotics control.
Comments