NDPS Act: SC Says Sympathy Can’t Dilute Mandatory Sentence
- Sakshi Mishra
- Feb 4
- 3 min read
New Delhi, December 11, 2025 — In a landmark ruling, India's Supreme Court has upheld the 10-year sentence and conviction of a woman under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1985, emphasizing that compassionate considerations cannot reduce the minimum penalty required by law.
Background of the Case
The case began when the appellant, Jothi, also known as Nagajothi, challenged her conviction for a narcotics offense involving a commercial quantity. On September 21, 2019, she and her husband were arrested by Tamil Nadu police after 23.5 kilograms of ganja were seized, classified as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
On February 1, 2021, the trial court found the couple guilty, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment each and imposing a fine of ₹1 lakh. The Madras High Court upheld this conviction and sentence on June 27, 2024. Unhappy with the high court’s decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a sentence reduction on compassionate grounds, citing her youth, clean criminal record, and role as the primary caregiver for a minor child.
Supreme Court Bench and Order
On December 11, 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, delivered the judgment rejecting the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence. Justice Pancholi, in the order, stressed that while humanitarian factors might be relevant for executive clemency, they cannot diminish the mandatory minimum punishment set by the NDPS Act.
The court examined various points raised by the appellant's lawyer:
Mandatory minimum sentence: The NDPS Act mandates a minimum punishment for possessing commercial quantities of narcotics, which the court reiterated cannot be reduced based on personal or social circumstances such as age, first-time offense, or family conditions.
Humanitarian plea: The appellant's lawyer argued for a reduced sentence due to her caregiving duties and lack of prior criminal history. The court dismissed this, stating such factors are relevant only to executive clemency and should not affect judicial decisions where mandatory sentences are prescribed by law.
Evidence and procedural compliance: The court affirmed that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrating a clear chain of custody for the seized drugs, supported by witness testimonies. Any procedural issues, including delays related to Section 52A, did not weaken the prosecution’s case.
Appellant’s Counsel: Argued for leniency based on personal circumstances and evidence procedure issues.
Public Prosecutor: Opposed any leniency, highlighting that the mandatory minimum sentences and the evidence presented were fully consistent with the conviction.
Legal experts suggest this decision reinforces the stringent legal framework of the NDPS Act, particularly its stance against commercial narcotic offenses. The ruling clarifies that courts cannot relax the mandatory minimum sentencing rules due to compassion or personal hardships, underscoring the legislature’s intent to impose strict penalties for drug trafficking and related crimes.
The ruling by the Supreme Court, issued on December 11, 2025, concludes a legal journey that began with the seizure of 23.5 kg of cannabis on September 21, 2019, and moved through both the trial court and the Madras High Court before reaching the Supreme Court. By upholding the 10-year mandatory sentence mandated by the NDPS Act, the Bench confirmed that judicial bodies lack the authority to reduce penalties below the established minimum, even under sympathetic circumstances. This judgment strengthens the purpose of Parliament in enacting the NDPS legislation and is expected to influence future legal decisions by limiting judges' discretion in cases involving significant amounts of illicit drugs.
sources@
Comments