Significance and impact of SC order on confessions in narcotics cases

The Supreme Court has ruled on a long-pending question of law on whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act can be admissible as confessional statements during criminal trials.

Daily Current Affairs Quiz 2020

Key-Points

The majority judgment ruled that statements recorded by officers under the NDPS Act cannot be treated as confessions.

The ruling will impact evidence in several cases, including the alleged drugs case being investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) where actor Rhea Chakraborty and 24 others have been named as accused.

The majority view by Justices Nariman and Justices Sinha held that confessional statements made before an officer under section 53 of the NDPS Act if held as the basis to convict a person would be “a direct infringement” of constitutional guarantees”.

While it was submitted to the court that confessional statements before police officers were considered admissible in other special acts including the now repealed Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the court said that they were used with several safeguards contained in the Acts themselves.

The court also held that when a reference is made to “police officers”, it does not only mean a police officer belonging to a state police force but includes officers who may belong to other departments.