Statutory prohibition under NDPS Act prevails over subordinate rules; omission from Schedule I does not exclude psychotropic substances.

Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act is the principal prohibition on dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and it operates independently of whether a substance is listed in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules. Sections 9 and 10 authorise rules to permit and regulate limited dealings, but they do not create the prohibition itself. Rules 53 and 64 therefore function as regulatory provisions and exceptions under the parent Act, not as the source of the statutory ban. A subordinate rule cannot override or dilute the Act, and the contrary interpretation based on omission from Schedule I was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prohibition in Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to psychotropic substances merely because they are not specified in Schedule I to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985; (ii) whether Rules 53 and 64 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 operate as the source of the prohibition, or only as exceptions and regulations under the parent Act.

Analysis: Section 8(c) contains the principal statutory prohibition against dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, subject only to the limited exception for medical or scientific purposes and only in the manner permitted by the Act, rules or orders made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 empower the Central and State Governments to make rules permitting and regulating such dealing; they do not authorize rules to create the prohibition itself. The scheme of the Act and the Rules shows that Rules 53 and 64 regulate and in some cases permit limited dealing in specified substances, but they do not furnish the source of the prohibition. A subordinate rule cannot cut down or override the parent Act. The contrary view that the omission of a substance from Schedule I to the Rules excludes the operation of Section 8(c) was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The prohibition in Section 8(c) applies independently of whether a psychotropic substance is listed in Schedule I to the Rules, and Rules 53 and 64 are not the source of the prohibition.

Final Conclusion: The judgment settled the legal position against the view that absence from Schedule I to the Rules takes a psychotropic substance outside the Act, and the matters were remitted to the concerned High Courts for fresh orders in the light of that ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent Act contains a direct prohibition, subordinate rules can only regulate or create limited exceptions and cannot be construed to negate or restrict the statutory prohibition.

---