Introduction:
In Great Legislation Movement India Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 7608/2019, the Delhi High Court was called upon to examine a question that sits at the intersection of criminal law, public health, science, economics, and evolving global policy trends namely whether India’s legal regime governing cannabis under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the NDPS Rules requires dilution or reconsideration. The petitions were heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, which dealt with a batch of pleas seeking decriminalisation or relaxation of restrictions on cannabis including ganja for medicinal, industrial, economic, ecological, and scientific purposes. While the Court refrained from issuing any direct judicial mandate to decriminalise or dilute the law, it recognised the significance of the concerns raised and directed the Central Government to undertake a comprehensive stakeholder consultation and policy review on whether such dilution is necessary, identifying the Narcotics Control Bureau as the nodal agency for this exercise.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, led by Great Legislation Movement India Trust, mounted a wide-ranging challenge to the existing statutory framework under the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules insofar as they relate to cannabis, including ganja. At the core of their submission was the argument that the current law is rooted in an outdated understanding of cannabis and fails to reflect contemporary scientific research, medical evidence, and international regulatory practices. The petitioners contended that cannabis has demonstrable medicinal value, particularly in pain management, palliative care, treatment of neurological disorders, and certain mental health conditions, and that the blanket criminalisation or severe restriction of ganja under the NDPS Act creates an artificial barrier to legitimate medical research and therapeutic use.
The petitioners further argued that the NDPS Act, while ostensibly permitting use of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes, imposes such onerous procedural and regulatory constraints that, in practice, access becomes illusory. According to them, licensing mechanisms are opaque, approvals are rare, and the fear of criminal prosecution discourages doctors, researchers, and institutions from engaging with cannabis-based treatments or studies. This, they submitted, runs contrary to the constitutional mandate to promote public health and scientific temper.
Beyond medicinal use, the petitioners highlighted the industrial and economic potential of cannabis, particularly hemp, pointing to its use in textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction material, and sustainable agriculture. They argued that continued restrictive regulation deprives farmers of alternative livelihood opportunities, stifles innovation, and prevents India from participating in a rapidly growing global cannabis economy. Ecologically, cannabis was projected as a low-water, high-yield crop capable of contributing to environmental sustainability.
The petitioners also drew attention to global regulatory trends, noting that several countries have moved towards decriminalisation or regulated legalisation of cannabis, both for medical and limited recreational purposes. They submitted that India’s rigid approach, heavily influenced by international conventions of an earlier era, warrants re-examination in light of changing global consensus and domestic realities. On this basis, the petitioners urged the Court to either decriminalise cannabis use altogether or direct dilution of the NDPS provisions to enable wider, regulated access for legitimate purposes.
Arguments on Behalf of the Union of India:
The Union of India, represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel, opposed the plea for judicial intervention in the cannabis regulatory framework and defended the existing provisions of the NDPS Act. The Centre submitted that it is incorrect to suggest that there is a complete or absolute ban on the use of cannabis in India. It was emphasised that the NDPS Act itself incorporates sufficient enabling provisions permitting the use of cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes, subject to regulatory oversight and licensing.
According to the Centre, the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act is to balance the need to prevent drug abuse and trafficking with the recognition that certain narcotic and psychotropic substances have legitimate medical and scientific applications. The regulatory structure, including the NDPS Rules, was described as a conscious policy choice designed to ensure that controlled substances do not enter illicit markets under the guise of therapeutic use. The Centre cautioned that any dilution of restrictions, if undertaken without adequate safeguards, could lead to misuse, public health risks, and increased substance abuse.
The Union further argued that questions relating to decriminalisation, dilution of penal provisions, or reclassification of substances involve complex policy considerations encompassing public health, law enforcement capacity, international treaty obligations, and social impact. Such matters, it was submitted, fall squarely within the domain of the executive and the legislature, and are not amenable to judicial determination in the absence of manifest arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity.
The Centre also informed the Court that India remains bound by international conventions on narcotic drugs, and any substantial shift in domestic policy would require careful alignment with these obligations. It was contended that the existing framework already provides flexibility for medical and scientific use and that the real issue lies in implementation and regulation rather than statutory overreach. On these grounds, the Union urged the Court to dismiss the petitions and refrain from issuing directions that could amount to judicial legislation.
Judgment:
After considering the submissions of both sides, the Delhi High Court adopted a measured and institutionally restrained approach. The Court declined to issue any judicial directions mandating decriminalisation or dilution of the NDPS Act or the NDPS Rules, holding that such decisions are inherently matters of policy and lie within the exclusive domain of the executive and the legislature. The Bench observed that courts are not equipped to adjudicate on the desirability or feasibility of broad policy reforms in an area as sensitive and multifaceted as narcotics regulation, particularly when competing considerations of public health, criminal justice, international obligations, and economic impact are involved.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioners is not frivolous and deserves serious consideration. The Bench noted that the material placed on record and the submissions made by the Union of India themselves demonstrate that the use of cannabis, if permitted, must operate within a framework of formal regulation. Whether such regulation requires recalibration or dilution in light of scientific developments and evolving societal needs, the Court observed, is a legitimate question but one that must be addressed through policy-making rather than adjudication.
In this context, the Court directed the Union of India to undertake a comprehensive stakeholder consultation and review process to examine whether there is a need for dilution of the provisions of the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules relating to the use of cannabis and, if so, for what specific purposes such dilution may be warranted. The Narcotics Control Bureau was identified as the nodal agency to coordinate this consultative exercise, involving relevant ministries, experts, and stakeholders. The Court thus struck a balance between judicial restraint and constitutional responsiveness, ensuring that the issue is not foreclosed but is examined through appropriate democratic and administrative channels.