NDPS Disposal Rules Don't Bar Interim Release Of Seized Vehicle To Innocent Owner : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 27) held that when the owner of a vehicle establishes that it was used for transporting narcotic substances without his knowledge or connivance, he cannot be denied interim custody of the vehicle pending trial.

The Court clarified that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (“2022 Disposal Rules”) cannot divest the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act to order interim release of the confiscated vehicle when the owner prima facie establishes that he is unconnected with the seized contraband.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal filed by a lorry owner whose vehicle was intercepted and thereafter confiscated by the police for allegedly carrying a NDPS substance. Despite the Appellant prima facie establishing that he was unconnected with the transporting of the contraband, as his lorry was used for carrying iron sheets, both the Special Court and the Madras High Court rejected his plea for interim release of the vehicle, holding that the NDPS Act and the 2022 Disposal Rules precluded the Court from granting such relief.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant argued that the impugned decisions erred in concluding that the 2022 Disposal Rules bar the release of the confiscated vehicle to the rightful owner. He added that the 2022 Disposal Rules were subordinate legislation framed under the NDPS Act whose Section 60(3) doesn't bar interim release of the vehicle when the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance, therefore any interpretation otherwise would be ultra vires to the parent statute.

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta, accepting the Appellant's argument, observed that subordinate legislation cannot override the provisions of the parent statute. The 2022 Disposal Rules, the Court said, must be read in harmony with the NDPS Act and not in conflict with its express provisions.

“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 [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules. Any interpretation to the contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust consequences by depriving a bona fide owner of his property without judicial scrutiny or an opportunity of hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the NDPS Act and contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice.”, the Court observed.

Reference was drawn to the recent case of Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal (2025), a vehicle is not liable to be confiscated if the owner proves that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

“The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision makes it abundantly clear that confiscation or otherwise of a conveyance is to be determined finally, only upon conclusion of the trial, and until such adjudication, the ownership rights of the owner, who prima facie establishes that he is unconnected with the seized contraband, from claiming the seized vehicle cannot be extinguished. It further underscores that the power of confiscation is coupled with a duty to observe procedural fairness and to ensure that no prejudice is caused to an innocent owner who had neither knowledge nor willfully participated or connived to commit the offence under the NDPS Act.”, the Court said, referring to Tarun Kumar Majhi (supra).

“Where the owner is able to demonstrate that the conveyance was used in violation of the NDPS Act without his knowledge or connivance and that due diligence was exercised, the vehicle cannot be confiscated merely because it was used in the commission of an offence under the said Act.”, the Court added.

When the NDPS Act bars the confiscation of a vehicle if the owner is able to show that it was used without his knowledge or connivance to transport the contraband, then the NDPS Rules cannot be interpreted as barring the interim release of the vehicle, the Court stated.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the seized lorry was ordered to be released to the Appellant as part of the interim measure till pendency of trial.

Cause Title: DENASH VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sreegesh M.k, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. N Narasimha Murthy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Aashigaa Pravaagini, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv. Mr. K.s.badhrinathan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Srivastava, Adv.