Why in News?

• The Supreme Court has recently given observation on the judgment delivered in October 2021 by the Bombay High Court in the Union of India v. Rhea Chakraborty.
• The bench said that the High Court’s interpretation of the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) will not be treated as a precedent in any other cases.

Background

• The drugs case against Rhea Chakraborty was registered post the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2021.
• She was arrested in the NDPS case on September 8, 2021 and got bail a month later on October 4, 2021.
• The Bombay High Court had interpreted the scope of Section 27A of the NDPS Act to hold that mere giving of money to buy drugs and mere concealment of drug use by a person will not amount to "financing illicit trade" and "harbouring of offender" as per the said section.
• The Narcotics Control Bureau Challenged the approach of the High Court in the Supreme Court. The NDPS Act, 1985 is the principal legislation through which the state regulates the operations of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Court’s Observation

• The bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh observed that at this stage the challenge to impugned order may not be required. However, the question of law would be kept open.

Section 27A NDPS Act

• The NDPS Act, 1985 is a cardinal legislation through which the state regulates the operations of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 27A of the Act prescribes the punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders.
• The punishment mentioned under the provision is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees.
• The court may, for reasons recorded in the writing, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
• A significant amendment was made to the section in the year 2021.
  • Section 2 of the Act defining the term “illicit activities” was amended in 2014.
  • However, term illicit activities under Section 27A was not amended in 2014 and continued to refer to the earlier clause number (as it was before 2014 amendment).
  • This error was later rectified through the Amendment Act of 2021.