In conflict between national sovereignty and personal liberty, former must prevail: Supreme Court

A bench of Justices, however, refrained from elaborating further on the intersection of Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and statutory restrictions.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that in matters involving a conflict between national sovereignty and personal liberty — particularly in cases like drug trafficking that affect the economy and public health — the former must prevail.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, however, refrained from elaborating further on the intersection of Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and statutory restrictions, noting a related issue has been referred to a larger bench in the Tasleem Ahmed case (Delhi riots case).

"We do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all. Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people,'' the bench said.

Dealing with an appeal filed by the Punjab government, the court emphasised that in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, courts must mandatorily consider the stringent twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, while deciding bail applications.

The bench here set aside a bail order granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to an accused allegedly running a drug trafficking network from inside a jail, underscoring that prolonged incarceration alone cannot override the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.

The court observed that while Article 21 of the Constitution concerning personal liberty has been invoked in several cases to grant bail due to delays in trial, its application has not been uniform.

It also noted the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for bail purposes.

The June 2, 2026 ruling reinforces the consistent judicial view that statutory safeguards under the NDPS Act cannot be diluted in commercial quantity drug cases, even as courts balance individual liberty with societal interests.

In its judgment, the court underscored that the consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was mandatory.

Section 37(1)(b)(ii) requires that where the public prosecutor opposes the bail plea, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

The court made allowed the appeal by the Punjab government against the High Court’s October 15, 2025, order releasing Balraj Singh alias Billa in a heroin trafficking case.

According to the prosecution, police had intercepted a vehicle and seized 1.465 kg of heroin in January 2024. Co-accused allegedly revealed that Balraj Singh, lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, had directed them to collect and supply the contraband.

Investigations reportedly revealed he was operating a drug network from inside the jail using illegal mobile phones.

The special court had rejected his bail plea, but the High Court granted regular bail citing the period of detention and the likely delay in trial completion.

The High Court had also observed that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail.

The Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court failed to address the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37.

Referring to its earlier judgments in State of Meghalaya Vs Lalrintluanga Sailo (2024), Union of India Vs Ajay Kumar Singh (2023), and other cases, the bench said the requirements cannot be bypassed in commercial quantity cases.

The bench pointed out that Balraj Singh has previous cases involving similar NDPS offences, making it difficult to conclude he would not indulge in similar activities if released.

He has been in custody for one year and seven months, while the maximum punishment, if convicted, could extend to 20 years.

“Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court observed.

The court also noted that bail granted to co-accused in the same case was separately set aside by it.