T This research examines the imposition of criminal sanctions below the special minimum threshold in a narcotics case, as occurred in supreme court decision number 1734/k/pid.sus/2024, in which the defendant—proven to have received and acted as an intermediary in the trade of class i narcotics under article 114 paragraph (1) of law number 35 of 2009 concerning narcotics—was sentenced to 2 (two) years and 6 (six) months of imprisonment, far below the special minimum threat of 5 (five) years stipulated by law. the problem addressed in this research is how the process of evidence in the case is examined from the perspective of criminal procedural law and the narcotics law, and how the principle of legal certainty applies to judicial discretion in imposing sentences below the special minimum threshold. this research aims to describe the evidentiary process in the case in question and to analyze the application of the principle of legal certainty to the exercise of judicial independence in imposing sentences below the special minimum threshold. the method employed is normative legal research using a statutory and case approach that is descriptive in nature, analyzed qualitatively and concluded deductively. the results of the research show that the evidentiary process has fulfilled the requirements of articles 183 and 184 of the indonesian criminal procedure code (kuhap); however, the supreme court deviated from the special minimum threshold on the grounds of the quantity of evidence and sentencing disparity, which creates tension between substantive justice and formal legal certainty. this research recommends the formulation of a supreme court regulation on guidelines for narcotics sentencing that contains objective parameters for deviation from the special minimum threshold.