Legal Review and Analysis of Denash vs The State of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 1258

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Denash vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 INSC 1258
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and reconciles the following statutory provisions:

• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act):
  Section 60(3): Deals with the liability of conveyances to confiscation. It provides an exception if the owner proves the vehicle was used without their knowledge, connivance, and that they had taken all reasonable precautions.
  Section 63: Lays down the procedure for confiscation, mandating a hearing for any person claiming a right to the seized property before an order of confiscation is passed.
  Sections 36-C & 51: Make the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) applicable to proceedings under the NDPS Act, insofar as they are not inconsistent with it.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
  Sections 451 & 457 CrPC (Sections 497 & 503 BNSS): Empower criminal courts to pass orders for the interim custody and disposal of property seized during investigation and pending trial.

• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022:
  Rules 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23: Establish the framework for the disposal of seized narcotics and conveyances through a Drug Disposal Committee, primarily via auction or tender.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellant: Denash (Owner of the vehicle)

• Respondent: The State of Tamil Nadu

• Subject Matter: Appeal for the interim release (on supurdagi) of a lorry seized under the NDPS Act.

• Procedural History:
  The Special Court (Thanjavur) rejected the appellant's application for interim custody.
  The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) upheld the Special Court's order, holding that the Drug Disposal Committee under the 2022 Rules had exclusive jurisdiction.
  The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Jurisdiction for Interim Release

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the introduction of the NDPS Rules, 2022, divested the Special Courts of their inherent power to grant interim custody of a conveyance seized under the NDPS Act, and vested such power exclusively in the administrative Drug Disposal Committee.

Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court conducted an in-depth analysis, leading to several key conclusions:

A. Subordinate Legislation Cannot Override the Parent Act
The Court firmly established that the Rules of 2022 are subordinate legislation. As such, they are meant to supplement the parent NDPS Act and cannot override, curtail, or be inconsistent with its substantive provisions and procedural safeguards. The Rules provide a mechanism for "disposal" but do not address the rights of an owner to seek "interim custody" during the pendency of trial. (Para 13, 27)

B. Statutory Safeguards of Confiscation Under Sections 60(3) and 63 NDPS Act
The Court emphasized that Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act create a comprehensive statutory framework for confiscation. Crucially, this framework:

• Vests the power to order confiscation exclusively in the Special Court, not an executive committee. (Para 20, 21)

• Provides a vital safeguard under Section 60(3), allowing an innocent owner to avoid confiscation by proving lack of knowledge and connivance.

• Mandates a hearing under Section 63 for any person claiming ownership before confiscation, upholding the principles of natural justice. (Para 22)

C. Continued Applicability of CrPC/BNSS Provisions
The Court reiterated that by virtue of Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act, the provisions of the CrPC (now BNSS) regarding the disposal of property apply. Therefore, the Special Court retains the power under Sections 451/457 CrPC (Sections 497/503 BNSS) to grant interim custody of seized property, including vehicles, pending trial. The mere possibility of future confiscation does not bar interim release. (Para 28)

D. Harmonious Construction with Precedent: Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam
The Court relied on its recent precedent in Bishwajit Dey (2025 INSC 32), which outlined scenarios for interim release. It clarified that while the 2022 Rules were not considered in that case, its ratio remains valid. The Court endorsed a pragmatic and non-mechanical application of the scenarios from Bishwajit Dey, focusing on the bona fides of the owner. (Para 33, 34)

E. Application to the Present Case: Establishing the Owner's Bonafides
Applying the law to the facts, the Court found the appellant to be a bona fide owner because:

• He was the lawful owner with valid documents.

• The vehicle was engaged in a legitimate, high-value commercial transaction (transporting 29,400 MT of iron sheets).

• The appellant was not arraigned as an accused in the chargesheet, and there was no allegation of his involvement or conspiracy.

• It was improbable that he would risk his valuable vehicle and cargo by knowingly permitting the transport of a small quantity of Ganja (6 kg). (Para 31, 32, 34)

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It held:

1. The Rules of 2022 do not divest the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain applications for interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act.

2. The Special Court retains the power to release a vehicle on supurdagi (interim custody) under Sections 451/457 CrPC (Sections 497/503 BNSS).

3. The vehicle (Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315) was ordered to be released to the appellant on such terms and conditions as the Special Court may impose. (Para 36, 37)

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1258), what is the primary legal status of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, in relation to the parent NDPS Act?
(a) They are superior to the Act and override its provisions.
(b) They are subordinate legislation and cannot override the parent Act.
(c) They completely replace the confiscation procedure under the NDPS Act.
(d) They grant exclusive power to the police for vehicle disposal.

Question 2: In the Denash case, which statutory provision under the NDPS Act did the Supreme Court identify as mandating a hearing for a vehicle owner before confiscation, thereby upholding natural justice?
(a) Section 52A
(b) Section 60(3)
(c) Section 63
(d) Section 53