The Supreme Court of India clarified the interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding procedural safeguards during drug searches. It emphasized that individuals must be informed of their right to have a search conducted in the presence of a neutral party. The Court dismissed the argument concerning the use of “nearest” gazetted officer, affirming compliance with procedures.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India recently provided key insights into the interpretation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This section governs the procedural safeguards for searches involving individuals suspected of carrying illegal drugs. In its December 2 ruling in the case of State of NCT vs Mohd Jabir, the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar clarified critical aspects of the provisionEnsuring Awareness, Not Extra Formality
The Court observed that the intent of Section 50 is to ensure that individuals being searched are aware of their rights. Specifically, they must be informed of their option to have the search conducted in the presence of a neutral third party such as a magistrate or a gazetted officer.
“It is obvious that the intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search,”
the Court stated.
Section 50 explicitly mentions the “nearest gazetted officer”, emphasizing the need for neutrality and timely action during searches. However, a case involving the use of “any gazetted officer” instead of “nearest” in a search notice led the Delhi High Court to grant bail to Mohd Jabir, accused of possessing heroin.
The Delhi High Court reasoned that the deviation misled the accused, causing him to forgo his right to have the search conducted in the presence of a neutral third party.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating:
“Use of the expression ‘nearest’ refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched. Delay should be avoided, as is reflected from the use of the word ‘unnecessary delay’ … Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision.”
Read Also: CLAT 2025 Results Declared! A Landmark Step for Aspiring Legal Minds
The Court emphasized that there is no substantive difference between “nearest” and “any” gazetted officer in this context, provided the suspect is informed of their rights.
The Supreme Court concluded that the search notice served on Jabir complied with Section 50 and dismissed the notion that he was misled.
“The option given to the respondent, Mohd. Jabir, about to be searched, with reference to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, does not refer to the authorized person in the raiding team itself,”
the Court held.
With this clarification, the Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to Jabir, reaffirming its stance on procedural compliance under the NDPS Act. This ruling upholds the significance of balancing procedural safeguards with practical implementation in anti-drug operations.
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
