The Supreme Court's two-judge bench today expressed reservations about another two-judge bench's judgment in Sukhwinder Singh (2026), which held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 can't override the stringent statutory requirements for granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1987 (NDPS).

In the verdict pronounced today in Sujit Das v UOI, a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar expressed that the judgment in State of Punjab v Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora has become "per incuriam" in the light of the 2021 UOI v KA Najeeb judgment, wherein a three-judge bench held that violation of the right to speedy trial is a ground for constitutional Courts to grant bail even under special statutes which provide for stringent bail conditions.

The bench said: "In Sukhwinder Singh alias Gora, this Court observed that the right to speedy trial rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a precious constitutional right. However, the bench proceeded to observe that in matters governed by special enactments such as the NDPS Act, particularly where the recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into service only on the ground of delay to override Section 37."

Noting this, Justice Bhuyan, who read the pronouncement, stated that while the coordinate bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice AG Masih stated that Article 21 and Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other, the present bench feels that when the former is violated, the rigours of special enactments will melt down as held in Najeeb.

He said: "We have our reservations on the aforesaid observations made by the bench. First and foremost, the rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution are not only constitutional rights, these are fundamental rights. The right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 are at the core of our constitutional jurisprudence. These fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under a special statute."

Further, the bench stated that the observations in Sukhwinder run counter to numerous judgments where it has been reiterated that when there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions under a special statute would have to give way.

Referring to those judgments, the bench said: "Please see Union of India versus K A Najeeb, Satender Kumar Antil, Mohd Muslim, Ankur Chadda, Vijay Singh versus Union of India, where this Court clearly held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Then, Sayed Iftikhar Andrabi and Jaskaranjit Singh Dhillon. In fact, it could be urged that such an observation by the two-judge bench in Sukhwinder Singh alias Gora may be hit by the principle of per incuriam, as K A Najeeb is a judgment by a three-Judge Bench."

However, since the Sukhwinder Singh judgment is by a bench of the same strength, the Court refused to comment beyond this.

Notably, Justice Bhuyan's bench, in Sayeed Iftikhar Andrabi, had expressed disagreement with a co-ordinate bench's judgment in Gulfisha Fatima regarding the manner in it applied Najeeb verdict while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots UAPA case.

Today's judgment was pronounced in an appeal where four persons had challenged the Tripura High Court's judgment denying bail. They were detained on September 29, 2025, at 2 PM as part of search and seizure but were shown as formally arrested on 11 AM on September 30, 2025. The Court ruled that they ought to have been produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours from September 29 at 2 PM. It held that there was a violation of Article 22(2), which vitiated their arrests.

The judgment also held that the 24-hour period under Article 22(2) begins when a person's liberty is curtailed, not when the person is formally arrested. It further held that when Article 22(2) is violated, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS, which imposes stringent bail conditions, will have to give way for the release of the person from custody.

Also from the judgment- 24-Hour Period For Production Before Magistrate Runs From Time Of Detention & Not From Formal Arrest : Supreme Court