Supreme Court to revisit Hira Singh ruling on calculating narcotic quantities under NDPS Act

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would re-examine the legal position on how “small” and “commercial” quantities of narcotic drugs are determined under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act [Mayank Girishbhai Shah vs. Union of India].

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh issued notice in a writ petition questioning the correctness of its 2020 decision in Hira Singh v. Union of India.

In that case, the Court had upheld a government notification which provided that for the purposes of classifying seized contraband as small, intermediate or commercial, the entire weight of the mixture or solution must be considered and not merely the pure drug content.

The challenge before the Court arose from a notification issued by the Central government on November 18, 2009 which amended an earlier notification of 2001 prescribing thresholds.

By inserting Note 4 into the 2001 notification, the amendment clarified that the entire mixture containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances would be treated as the relevant quantity.

The petitioner assailed this rule as arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the scheme of the NDPS Act.

According to the petition, the controversy has practical consequences for prosecutions under the Act. For instance, in the petitioner’s own case involving Ayurvedic medicines linked to him, chemical reports found only 74 grams of opium in the seized material.

However, because the total mixture weighed over 3.2 kilograms, authorities classified it as a “commercial quantity” under the rule, exposing him to harsher punishment and stricter bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner argued that the NDPS Act is concerned with the isolated weight of the offending drug, pointing to statutory definitions that rely on percentage content for opium, coca derivatives and other narcotics.

The plea cited the 2001 amendment to the Act, which introduced graded punishment depending on quantity as evidence that parliament intended leniency for small users and harsher sanctions for traffickers.

The plea also relied on the Court’s earlier judgment in E. Michael Raj v. Narcotic Control Bureau (2008), where a two-judge bench held that only the actual drug content in a mixture should be counted for classification. That view was overturned by the 2020 ruling in Hira Singh, which upheld the government’s attempt to mandate consideration of the entire mixture weight.

The petitioner urged the Court to reconsider Hira Singh, pointing out that it leads to anomalies such as treating a few grams of opium mixed with large quantities of sugar as “commercial quantity,” attracting a 10–20 year sentence, while pure opium of higher weight attracts lesser punishment.

It was further argued that the judgment in Hira Singh ignored the different purposes for which neutral material may be mixed with drugs. While in some cases it may be a diluent intended for consumption, in others it may be a carrier or part of a bona fide product like an Ayurvedic formulation. Treating all such mixtures alike violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner contended.

The Court sought responses from the Central government and the Narcotics Control Bureau on the matter and indicated that the interpretation of the NDPS Act in Hira Singh will have to be revisited.