Delegated legislative power under the NDPS Act upheld for Ketamine notification, with purposive reading of Section 3.

Ketamine's inclusion in the NDPS Schedule and the consequential small-and-commercial-quantity notification were upheld as a valid exercise of delegated legislative power. The Court read Section 3 purposively and held that the word "and" between clauses (a) and (b) does not make both conditions mandatory in every case; clause (b) is not a compulsory precondition where relevant material under clause (a) exists. In view of the statutory object, international concern over Ketamine abuse, and the material before the Government, the notifications were not ultra vires and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inclusion of Ketamine in the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by notification dated 10.02.2011, and the consequential notification prescribing small and commercial quantities dated 21.06.2011, were ultra vires Section 3 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 3 empowers the Central Government to add to or omit from the list of psychotropic substances if it is satisfied that such action is necessary or expedient on the basis of information and evidence regarding abuse or scope of abuse, and the wording of clause (b) also refers to modifications, if any, in international conventions. The Court held that the use of the word "and" between clauses (a) and (b) does not make both conditions mandatory in every case, and that clause (b) is not a compulsory precondition where relevant material exists under clause (a). The statutory object of the NDPS Act, the international concern over Ketamine abuse, and the material before the Government supported the notification as a valid exercise of delegated legislative power.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notification dated 10.02.2011 failed, the consequential notification dated 21.06.2011 also did not survive, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute conferring delegated legislative power uses "and" between two factors but the context shows that one factor is not intended to be mandatory in all cases, the provision may be read disjunctively to effectuate the legislative purpose, and the validity of the notification will turn on whether the relevant statutory basis is otherwise satisfied.

---