Confession in NDPS Cases would not be Admissible as Evidence

The Supreme Court (SC) in Sharik Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau directed on 6th March 2024 that the Narcotics Control Bureau’s officers should comply with its three-judge Bench judgment in  Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1].

In the judgement in Tofan Singh case, the SC held that the confessions recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) would not be admissible as evidence against the person. The court reasoned that officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under the NDPS Act are police officers. The crucial issue in the case was whether the use of confessions recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, as evidence, violates a person’s right against self-incrimination and right to privacy under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The SC held that a person’s right against self-incrimination and right to privacy under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution would be applicable against confessions recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Such confessions would not be admissible as evidence.

In the Tofan Singh case the SC noted that various provisions of the NDPS Act which provided safeguards to protect individuals’ fundamental rights. Hence, Section 67 should be similarly construed to balance the powers of the officers with individuals’ fundamental rights.

The judgement stresses that when interpreting provisions of stringent penal statutes, like the NDPS Act, the courts must adopt such an approach and construe such provisions in a manner that protects the rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

The SC pointed out that the officers under the NDPS Act are to be construed as police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and such officers would be able to compel or coerce individuals into recording confessions. Therefore, to protect the fundamental right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, confessions made before such officers would not be held admissible as evidence.

Reference

  1. Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1]

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *