Share :
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TAKE PRECEDENCE
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the primacy of fundamental rights even in cases involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS” Act). The case, Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau, highlighted the importance of following proper legal procedure during search and seizure operations
ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION STANDS FIRM
The crux of the case centered on the interplay between Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, and the search and seizure provisions of the NDPS Act. The Court emphatically stated that the NDPS Act cannot override this fundamental right.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A DELICATE BALANCE
The Court acknowledged the importance of the power to search and seize in combating the menace of drugs. However, it emphasized that this power comes with limitations. The judgement clarifies that search and seizure should be viewed as a “temporary interference” with the rights of the accused, and such interference must be conducted within the legal framework outlined in the NDPS Act itself.
FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS: A MATTER OF LAW
The Court overturned the conviction of the accused in this case due to non-compliance with Section 41 of the NDPS Act. This section mandates specific requirements for search and seizure operations, including a written record of the reason to believe an offense has been committed. In this instance, the authorities failed to comply with this crucial requirement.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau serves as a strong reminder that the law enforcement agencies must prioritize adherence to proper legal procedures during search and seizure operations. This includes obtaining necessary warrants, maintaining a clear chain of custody for evidence, and ensuring that searches are conducted within the bounds of law. By following these procedures, law enforcement can ensure the admissibility of evidence in court while upholding the fundamental rights of individuals.
Furthermore, the judgement reinforces the notion that the right against self-incrimination, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, remains sacred even in NDPS cases. This right protects individuals from being compelled to furnish evidence that could incriminate them. In the context of search and seizure, this means that authorities cannot coerce individuals into revealing information about hidden contraband or incriminating materials.
Finally, the judgement clarifies that the power to search and seize, is ultimately a “temporary interference” with individual rights. This power should be exercised with due caution and only when there is a legitimate reason to believe that an offense has been committed. By underlining the need for proportionality, the Court helps to ensure that the fight against drug trafficking does not come at the cost of fundamental liberties.
THE VERDICT: BALANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau strikes a crucial balance between combating drug trafficking and safeguarding individual rights. By insisting on adherence to legal procedure, the Court ensures that the fight against drugs does not come at the cost of fundamental liberties. This judgement serves as a precedent for future cases and reinforces the importance of due process in Indian law.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
