Supreme Court holds NDPS prohibition applies to psychotropic substances in Act even if absent from Schedule I of Rules; trials to proceed

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard appeals by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence challenging orders of the Delhi High Court and trial courts which had held that certain psychotropic substances (notably Buprenorphine Hydrochloride) listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules did not attract penal provisions of the NDPS Act and remitted cases for trial under the Drugs & Cosmetics regime. The appeals raised (i) whether dealing in psychotropic substances appearing in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but absent from Schedule I to the NDPS Rules constituted an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, (ii) whether Sanjeev V. Deshpande should be given prospective effect, and (iii) whether charges could be deleted or an accused discharged by invoking Section 216 CrPC after charge was framed.

Decision Summary The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court and trial court orders that excluded application of the NDPS Act, and directed that the Special Judges for NDPS trials proceed with trial in accordance with law. The Court held that Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act “in no uncertain terms prohibits the dealing in any manner in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance” and that the rules framed under Sections 9 and 76 were meant to “permit and regulate” such dealing and not to exclude it. The Court clarified that the NDPS Act and Rules operated in addition to — and not in derogation of — the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, with contraventions of D&C licence conditions potentially constituting NDPS offences as well. The Court further held that the three‑Judge bench decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande was binding and would apply retrospectively; it rejected the invocation of prospective overruling in the facts of these appeals. Finally, the Court held that Section 216 CrPC empowered alteration or addition of charges but did not authorise deletion of charges or lawful discharge of an accused after charge was framed; the Special Judges erred in remitting cases to Metropolitan Magistrates instead of continuing NDPS trials.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In other words, dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only when such dealing is for medical purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created under Section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder.”

Background The disputes arose from two prosecutions involving recoveries of Buprenorphine ampoules. In Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013, DRI officers searched premises in New Delhi and a drug manufacturer’s unit at Jind (Haryana) on 27.09.2003 and seized labelled and unlabelled ampoules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride; samples tested positive. Accused, including the clearing agent and suppliers, were charged under Sections 22 and 29 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge framed charge but later, on an application under Section 216 CrPC, took the view that offences under the NDPS Act were not made out because Buprenorphine did not figure in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules and remitted the file to the Metropolitan Magistrate for proceedings under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. The High Court upheld that approach relying on prior Delhi High Court decisions and State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, finding “if the drugs did not find place in Schedule‑I appended to the Rules, the provisions of Section 8 of the 1985 Act would have no application whatsoever.”

In Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014, a like seizure and prosecution arose from supply chains involving Rusan Health Care and distributors; the Special Judge again concluded that manufacture/possession/sale of Buprenorphine — though a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act — had to be regulated under the D&C Rules where it was a Schedule H drug, and remanded the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court dismissed the DRI’s Section 482 petitions. The appellant (DRI) argued before the Supreme Court that Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) correctly held that Section 8(c) applied to psychotropic substances listed in the Act’s Schedule and that Rules did not exclude those substances; respondents relied on older High Court precedents and pressed prospectivity. The Supreme Court analysed the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the NDPS scheme and Rules, and domestic precedents, held the NDPS prohibition covered the Schedule to the Act, rejected prospectivity, ruled Section 80 meant NDPS law operated “in addition to” the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, and held trial courts erred in deleting charges under Section 216 CrPC. The Court directed that the Special Courts proceed expeditiously with trial and sent directions that copies of the judgment be circulated to High Courts.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 498 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 & 272 of 2014) Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General of India; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Counsel

(Report based on the judgment authored by J.B. Pardiwala, J.; Manoj Misra, J. concurred. Judgment delivered 17 April 2025.)