Sovereignty paramount in drug cases, rules SC; cancels accused's bail

The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that national sovereignty takes precedence over individual liberty, especially in cases involving drug trafficking and psychotropic substances, highlighting the severity of such crimes against the nation.

IMAGE: A view of the Supreme Court of India. Photograph: ANI Photo

Key Points

The ruling overturns a high court order granting bail to a man accused of running a drug trafficking network from jail.
The court emphasised the severe impact of drug supply on the national economy and public health.
The accused had prior offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Prolonged incarceration can warrant bail, but its application is not uniform, according to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said if there is a conflict between the country's sovereignty and personal liberty, the former will take priority, especially in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

The court made the remarks while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana high court order that had granted bail to a man accused of operating a drug-trafficking network from inside a jail using mobile phones.

"Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of the country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and the health of people," a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said.

NDPS Act and accused's history

The apex court said in this case, there are antecedents involving commission of offences of the very same nature under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail.

Noting that the accused has only undergone a year and seven months in jail, the bench said if found guilty, a maximum prison sentence of 20 years may be imposed upon him.

"Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution," it said.

Prolonged incarceration and bail

The court said while on several occasions it has recognised that prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of Article 21, the application of the concept is not uniform.

"Moreover, there is no doubt that what constitutes 'prolonged incarceration' for the purposes of bail has not been expounded by this court or the law of the land," it added.