Possession of Substances in the NDPS Act Schedule , an Offence, Even if Not in the NDPS Rules
Last Updated on April 20, 2025 by Shianjany Pradhan
The Supreme Court recently held that dealing with a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule of the NDPS Act constitutes an offence under Section 8(c), even if the substance is not listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made this observation while hearing a case involving the possession of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride — a substance included in the NDPS Act’s Schedule but not under the Rules.
The respondent-accused had been charged under the NDPS Act. Still, the trial court deleted the charges by invoking Section 216 of the CrPC, relying on the 2007 State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta judgment.
This ruling held that prosecution under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained if the substance is not listed in the NDPS Rules. The High Court upheld this decision, prompting the Department of Revenue Intelligence to approach the Supreme Court.
The key issue was whether activities involving a substance listed only in the NDPS Act Schedule, and not in the NDPS Rules, would still fall under Section 8(c) of the Act. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the trial court and High Court had failed to consider the precedent set in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, which overruled the earlier Rajesh Kumar Gupta case.
The Court clarified that the mere absence of a substance from the Rules does not remove it from the NDPS Act’s purview. It further stated that for an accused to claim exemption, it must be proven that the substance was being used strictly for medical or scientific purposes and under the NDPS Act, its Rules, and any necessary licences or authorisations.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It reaffirmed that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, listed in the NDPS Act Schedule, is covered under the Act—even without its inclusion in the Rules—if handled without proper legal authorisation.
