SC order on confessions in narcotics cases

  • The Supreme Court has ruled on a long-pending question of law on whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act can be admissible as confessional statements during criminal trials. 
  • The majority judgment ruled that statements recorded by officers under the NDPS Act cannot be treated as confessions. 
THE QUESTION AND THE TWO ARGUMENTS
  • For over 30 years, multiple court judgments have been contrary opinion on this point of law – whether officers invested powers under the NDPS Act can be considered “police officers” and therefore, whether statements given to them by accused persons can be considered as confessions.
  • One argument was that the officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not defined as “police officers” but are given the powers of an “officer-in-charge of a police station”.
  • Therefore, confessions given to them should be admissible in evidence. 
  • The contrary opinion states that safeguards available for accused in international and Indian law, including the Constitution also extend to accused under the NDPS Act. 
  • This includes any statement given by a person to a police officer.
  • Hence, the statement cannot be considered as a confession and cannot be enough to prove guilt.
THE JUDGEMENT
  • In 2013, the Supreme Court in ‘Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu’ considered arguments on these points and referred the case to a larger bench for consideration. 
  • Arguments before a Bench of Justices R F Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee were concluded on September 16, and the order was reserved. 
  • It was delivered on October 29 with a 2:1 majority. 
  • Justices Nariman and Sinha ruled that such statements under the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statements.
  • Justice Banerjee gave a dissenting view.
  • The majority view by Justices Nariman and Justices Sinha held that confessional statements made before an officer under section 53 of the NDPS Act if held as the basis to convict a person would be “a direct infringement” of constitutional guarantees”. 
  • It was also submitted to the court that confessional statements before police officers were considered admissible in other special acts including the now repealed Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
  • The court retorted by saying that they were used with several safeguards contained in the Acts themselves.
  • Justice Banerjee, in her dissenting view, considered the illicit drug trafficking being an organized crime involving hardened criminals. 
  • She said that “over-emphasis on the principles of natural justice in drug-trafficking cases can be a major hindrance to the apprehension of offenders”. 
  • Her judgment said that guilty offenders should not be allowed to go Scott-free by reason “overemphasis on technicalities”.
  • The court also held that when a reference is made to “police officers”, it does not only mean a police officer belonging to a state police force but includes officers who may belong to other departments.
IMPACT OF THE RULING IN RHEA CHAKRABORTY AND OTHER CASES
  • The ruling will impact evidence in several cases, including the alleged drugs case being investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) where actor Rhea Chakraborty and 24 others have been named as accused.
  • It will have an impact on all ongoing cases, appeals and future cases unless it is referred to a larger bench and a different verdict is given. 
  • Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before officials of the NCB, for instance, as per the judgment, cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused.
HOW WILL THIS GO IN DEFENCE OF ACCUSED?
  • In the case against Chakraborty and 24 others so far, nearly 20 statements recorded under the Section will not remain admissible in law. 
  • In the case, most of the accused including Chakraborty had submitted before the court that they wanted to retract any statement claimed to have been made before the NCB officers stating that they were coerced into giving them and were involuntary. 
  • The NCB had said in its remand applications that they were led to some of the accused in the case through statements of their co-accused leading to searches and raids. 
  • The defense lawyers, following the Supreme Court judgment, said that the case was only dependent on the statements and hence could not now stand in court.
  • NCB officials, however, said that there is other corroborative evidence. 
  • An NCB official said that they will submit evidence like the money trial, whereby an accused is alleged to have made a payment to a drug dealer and other digital evidence.


SOURCE: IE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hamas V. PLO

The irony in the ongoing conflict is that Hamas, whose founding members were encouraged by Israel in the 1970s and 80s against Yasser Arafat’s secular national movement, has turned out to be Israel’s biggest rival in the Palestinian territories. HAMAS Hamas was established after the first intifada broke out in 1987, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.  Intifada was the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The first intifada lasted from 1987 to 1993, and the second began in 2000. As strife between Israel and Palestine continued to soar as the latter resorted to the First Intifada, or uprising, in December 1987, Hamas as an organisation led by Sunni-Islamic fundamentalists, began to take shape.  Hamas could gain immediate and immense popularity within the protesting Palestinians because it was ...
Read more

G7 global corporate Tax Deal

Image
The Group of Seven (G7) countries have backed the proposal to impose a common global corporate tax. It would be aimed at preventing multinational businesses from evading taxes and also squeeze the havens which attract tax evaders due to the low-rate jurisdictions.  The consensus to adopt a common tax rate was reached at the G7 finance ministers' meeting held in Buckingham (London) on June 5.  THE PROPOSAL The tax proposal endorsed by the US, the UK, France and other G7 countries has two parts.  The main part of the proposal states that countries around the world should tax their home companies' overseas profits at a rate of at least 15%.  The companies have multiple branches spread across various jurisdictions, they transfer the bulk of their profit in accounts set up in countries that offer the lowest tax rate.  Often, these tax havens are the Caribbean Islands such as Bahamas or British Virgin Islands, or at times, countries like Ireland where the corp...
Read more

The statue of Swami Vivekananda at the JNU campus

 Prime Minister Narendra Modi virtually unveiled a life-sized statue of Swami Vivekananda at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus on November 12. JNUSU (JNU students' union), un response, planned to protest on campus.  They believe the Modi government “openly supported” violence on campuses and is attacking universities with the National Education Policy which will result in fund cuts and privatization of education. FUNDING CONTROVERSY It was on June 30, 2017 that JNU’s Executive Council (EC) first gave approval for the statue.  The administration said it was installing the statue to give the campus a more “pleasing look” as Vivekananda had contributed to “nation building”. The administration remained mum on who was funding the statue and how much it would cost.  Then JNU Students’ Union president N Sai Balaji filed several RTIs to know about the funding. In January 2018, he filed an RTI seeking the total cost of construction of the statue as well as the sour...
Read more