Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: (2021) 4 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 2020
Bench: Justices RF Nariman, Indira Banerjee, and Navin Sinha
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Relevant Laws: Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Key Legal Issues: Admissibility of confessional statements, right against self-incrimination, right to privacy, police powers under the NDPS Act, interpretation of Section 67 and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The landmark judgement in Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 addressed significant legal issues concerning the admissibility of confessional statements recorded by officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court of India in this case was tasked with evaluating whether confessions made to officers empowered under the NDPS Act, in line with Section 67 of the Act, were admissible as evidence. The case examined the interplay between fundamental rights, such as the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to privacy under Article 21, and the powers granted to officers under the NDPS Act to record confessions.

The Supreme Court held that confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence against the accused. This decision was grounded in the protection of the individual’s rights against self-incrimination and the protection of privacy as enshrined in the Constitution. In this case, the majority view prevailed, with Justice Indira Banerjee dissenting on the issue of whether the officers under the NDPS Act could be classified as “police officers.”

Facts of Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu

The appellant, Toofan Singh, was arrested by officers of the National Crime Bureau (NCB) for violations under the NDPS Act. The officers exercised their powers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which authorises officers to call for information from any person suspected of violating the Act. In this case, the officers recorded a confessional statement from the appellant, in which he admitted to possessing and transporting narcotic drugs.

However, the appellant later retracted his confession, claiming it had been made under duress. Despite this retraction, the Additional Special Court under the NDPS Act admitted the confession as evidence and convicted the appellant. In response, the appellant appealed to the Madras High Court, arguing that his conviction was solely based on a retracted confessional statement that had been improperly admitted as evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Legal Questions Raised

The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving two pivotal issues in the case:

1. Whether officers empowered under the NDPS Act could be considered “police officers” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The appellant’s counsel argued that officers under the NDPS Act are not “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits confessions made to police officers from being admissible as evidence.
2. Whether confessions made to such officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would attract Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which bars the use of confessions obtained through coercion or inducement by police officers. The appellant argued that the confession made under duress was inadmissible, as it violated his constitutional rights.

Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu Judgement

In a significant judgement delivered by a three-judge bench, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellant, with a majority of 2:1. The Court held that confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence, as they violate the fundamental rights of the individual under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Majority Opinion

The majority opinion, delivered by Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, concluded that the officers conducting inquiries under the NDPS Act are, for all practical purposes, “police officers” within the meaning of the Evidence Act. As such, any confessions made to these officers should be treated as confessions made to police officers. This would make them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which excludes confessions made under coercion or duress.

The Court referred to the principle laid down in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India case, in which the right to privacy was recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court noted that the right to privacy is intrinsically linked to an individual’s autonomy and liberty, which would be violated if a person is compelled to make a self-incriminatory confession. The Court held that a person cannot be forced to provide a confession that would violate their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) or their right to privacy under Article 21.

Furthermore, the Court stressed that the NDPS Act, while designed to tackle the pressing issue of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, must still conform to the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to individuals. The Court reiterated that the provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 67, should be interpreted in a manner that balances law enforcement objectives with the protection of fundamental rights. Consequently, it held that confessions obtained under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would be in violation of the individual’s constitutional rights and thus inadmissible in court.

The majority also overruled previous rulings where certain officers under specific penal statutes were exempted from the restrictions imposed by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court held that allowing such exceptions would violate the fundamental rights of individuals under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 20(3) (right against self-incrimination), and 21 (right to privacy) of the Constitution.

Justice Indira Banerjee’s Dissent

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Indira Banerjee disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the NDPS Act. She argued that officers empowered under the NDPS Act should not be considered “police officers” for the purposes of the Evidence Act. Justice Banerjee contended that these officers do not possess all the powers of regular police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, she concluded that confessions made to these officers should not fall under the prohibition of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Justice Banerjee further noted that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly in the context of combating drug-related crimes. She argued that the NDPS Act imposes necessary and reasonable restrictions on individual rights to protect the larger public interest and to curb the trafficking of narcotics. As such, confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, according to Justice Banerjee, should be admissible as evidence in court.

Conclusion

The case of Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 stands as a testament to the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights in the face of stringent criminal laws. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the inadmissibility of confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reinforces the fundamental principles of self-incrimination and privacy. The judgement serves as a reminder that the power of law enforcement agencies must be exercised within the boundaries set by the Constitution, ensuring that the rights of individuals are not undermined in the pursuit of justice.