Supreme Court rulings on drug cases, divorce and the right to marry

Statements to NDPS officers are not confessions

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court, 29 October 2020) answered the reference by holding:

• officers invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" under section 25 of the Evidence Act, so a confessional statement made to them is barred and cannot be used to convict under the NDPS Act; and
• a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial.

The whole mixture is weighed

Hira Singh v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 22 April 2020) held that when a drug is seized mixed with one or more neutral substances, the neutral substance is not excluded — it is counted along with the actual drug content in deciding whether the quantity is small or commercial. It overruled E. Micheal Raj, which had counted only the pure drug, and upheld the 2009 notification adding this rule to Notification S.O. 1055(E).

Divorce on irretrievable breakdown, and waiving the waiting period

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (Constitution Bench, Supreme Court, 1 May 2023) held that:

• where the parties have settled, the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) has discretion to grant divorce by mutual consent without the second motion and waiting period of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and can also quash connected proceedings (domestic violence, maintenance, criminal cases). This power is to be used with care, keeping in mind the factors in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017).
• the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) even if one spouse opposes, where the facts show the marriage has completely failed, there is no possibility of the parties living together, and continuing the legal relationship is unjustified — balancing the position of the party who opposes.
• a party cannot file a writ petition asking the Supreme Court or a High Court to dissolve the marriage directly on this ground; the case has to reach the Court through the ordinary proceedings.

Maintenance for Muslim women

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (Supreme Court, 10 July 2024) concluded that:

• the maintenance provision of criminal procedure (section 125 CrPC, now BNSS section 144) applies to all married women, including Muslim women;
• a Muslim woman married and divorced under Muslim law can seek maintenance under section 125, under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, or both — the 1986 Act is in addition to section 125, not a replacement;
• for an illegal divorce under the 2019 triple talaq law, she may claim the subsistence allowance under section 5 of that Act or, at her option, maintenance under section 125.

An adult's choice of partner

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Supreme Court, 8 March and 9 April 2018), arising from Kerala (the Hadiya case), set aside the Kerala High Court judgment that had annulled the marriage of two consenting adults in a habeas corpus case. The Court held that whether she chose to marry had no bearing on a habeas corpus petition — once an adult is not in illegal confinement and wishes to pursue her own life, that is the end of the matter. The investigating agency was told that the validity of the marriage was not a subject for its investigation.

How to use this

These rulings bind all courts in India. Mention the case name to your lawyer; the Family Court, Magistrate or Special Court can apply it to your facts.