Date:- 28-10-2025
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a vehicle owner cannot be denied interim custody (supurdagi) of his seized vehicle under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) if he proves that the vehicle was used for transporting narcotics without his knowledge or connivance. The Court further clarified that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (“2022 Disposal Rules”) do not override the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act to grant such interim release.
Case Title: Denash vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 INSC 1258
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2025
Background of the Case
The appellant, Denash, was the registered owner of a lorry (Ashok Leyland TN 52 Q 0315) lawfully hired to transport iron sheets from Chhattisgarh to Tamil Nadu. During transit, police intercepted the vehicle and recovered 6 kilograms of ganja concealed under the driver’s seat and from the personal possession of four accused persons (driver and helpers). All four were arrested and charge-sheeted under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The owner, however, was not made an accused. When the vehicle remained seized, the owner applied before the Special NDPS Court at Thanjavur for interim custody under Section 497 BNSS (equivalent to Section 451 CrPC). The application was rejected, as was his revision before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which held that under the 2022 Disposal Rules, only the Drug Disposal Committee could decide on disposal of seized conveyances.
Aggrieved, the owner appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s restrictive view and clarified several important legal principles:
1. Rules Cannot Override the Act:
The Court held that the 2022 Disposal Rules are subordinate legislation and cannot override or restrict the powers conferred under the parent statute—the NDPS Act.
“The Rules being subordinate legislation cannot supersede the provisions of the parent legislation, i.e., the NDPS Act
2. Special Court’s Jurisdiction Intact:
The Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act retains full authority to consider applications for interim release or custody of vehicles seized under the Act.
The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules.”
3. Rights of Innocent Owners:
The Court emphasized that the rights of a bona fide owner must not be curtailed, especially where the vehicle was used without the owner’s knowledge or connivance.
Confiscation must conform to the basic tenets of natural justice and must be preceded with a prior hearing to ensure that an innocent owner is not subjected to undue hardship.”
4. Confiscation Only After Trial:
The Court reiterated that confiscation of a seized vehicle can occur only upon conclusion of the trial, not before. Until then, the owner’s proprietary rights remain protected.
Key Legal Findings
The Special NDPS Court can grant interim release of a vehicle under Sections 497 & 503 BNSS (equivalent to Sections 451 & 457 CrPC). The 2022 Disposal Rules merely lay down procedural guidelines for disposal; they cannot deprive the Court of its powers. If the owner proves absence of knowledge or connivance, interim custody must ordinarily be granted. Administrative bodies like the Drug Disposal Committee cannot unilaterally determine ownership rights or confiscation.
Judgment Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Madras High Court judgment, and directed that the lorry (TN 52 Q 0315) be released on supurdagi to the appellant-owner on such conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court.
This article covers the legal topics on judgement where This judgment reinforces the property rights of vehicle owners under the NDPS Act and protects innocent owners from wrongful deprivation. It ensures that the judicial process not administrative discretio governs confiscation and interim release decisions. The ruling will have significant implications for transport companies, logistics operators, and vehicle financiers, providing them legal recourse in cases where their vehicles are misused for narcotics transport without their knowledge. . further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal visit my website Tacit Legal dot in search on google, this website is made from Hostinger and wordpress follow our latest updates for legal news follow us on YouTube also for young lawyers law students helpful for Advocates, this blog is written by Advocate Shivaji Rathore practicing in Jammu and Kashmir high court and district court at Jammu. The website Tacit Legal is available on Google created with Hostinger and wordpress keep in touch and read our daily articles and reporting for law students and advocates as we provide you important legal information on Tacit Legal.in
Author: Advocate Shivaji Rathore
Founder – Tacit Legal | tacitlegal.in
Keywords:
NDPS Act 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Supreme Court Judgment 2025, Vehicle Seizure, Interim Custody, Supurdagi, Section 60 NDPS Act, Section 63 NDPS Act, Drug Disposal Committee, 2022 Disposal Rules, Denash vs State of Tamil Nadu, Tacit Legal, Legal News India, Supreme Court Updates.
