Delhi HC Issues Notice To Centre On A Plea Challenging The Prohibition On The Use Of Cannabis

Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central Government in a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the NDPS Act that prohibit the use of cannabis.

The Petitioner organisation started by saying that it is not seeking the legalisation of cannabis. It is only challenging certain provisions of the NDPS Act that prohibit the use of cannabis.

The Petitioner had also argued that in light of the changed circumstances, and also considering the recommendations given by the doctors of AIIMS, the current legal status of cannabis cannot be sustained.

The government counsel, however challenged the maintainability of the present petition, by saying that the similar petition is also pending before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.

He also argued that, since the Petitioner organisation is registered in Karnataka, the present court should not have jurisdiction over the matter.

In the last hearing, The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Hari Shankar, had refused the plea of Mr Datar to issue a notice to the government.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who had earlier argued on behalf of Petitioners, had submitted that cannabis was legal in India until 1985. It was only when the United States of America had banned the substance, that the Indian government followed suit and went ahead to ban cannabis.

Further, he had also argued that the recent report by the United Nations has stated that the findings on which cannabis was banned in the USA is scientifically flawed. Post that report, 24 states in Europe, United Kingdom and 33 States in the US itself have decriminalized the use of cannabis.

Mr Datar went on to highlight that there are two kinds of cannabis - one that serves a medical purpose, and the other which is used for recreation. However, the government just relied upon that US report that had come out in the 1980s to put a blanket ban on cannabis. He also cited judgments in Sabrimala, Adultery case and Navtej Jauhar to argue that, 'when the foundation of the crime doesn't exist, how can the crime be allowed to be in force'.

Mr Datar had also questioned the decision of the government to bring about amendments in NDPS Act through the route of Finance Act. 'What does NDPS have to do with finances', he questioned. Therefore, Mr Datar had asked for a notice you be issued to the government to file an affidavit.

Counsel for the government, on the other hand, had mentioned that they have not banned cannabis but they have put a regulatory mechanism for it.

The petition is preferred by Great Legalisation India Movement Trust wherein it has challenged the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, which prohibit and criminalize the use of cannabis or industrial hemp and prescribe restrictions on activities related to it.

The petitioner claims to be a registered trust which has been "at the forefront" of the movement to decriminalize the use of cannabis and raise awareness with respect to its medicinal, industrial, ecological, economic and other benefits.

The petitioner organisation had earlier clarified that it is not seeking to completely de-regulate the use of the drug. However, any regulation should be consistent with the requirement of "reasonable restriction". It is their case that the treatment of cannabis at par with other harmful and lethal chemicals is arbitrary, unscientific and unreasonable.