Latest news with #NarcoticsandPsychotropicSubstances
Time of India
5 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Flagging rise in drug abuse in CG, HC rejects PIL on hemp cultivation
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for the state govt to permit the cultivation and development of an ecosystem for industrial hemp/cannabis. The court observed that the petition, filed by Dr Sachin Ashok Kale, appeared to have a "personal gain, private motive and oblique motive" and was an attempt to gain permission for commercial transactions of cannabis products. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while hearing the petition, noted the significant increase in the consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances across Chhattisgarh in recent years. The bench said that such consumption has "evil effects on the body and mind of the person consuming it, but it ruins the entire family and society as well." The court emphasised that offences related to contraband and psychotropic substances are on the rise in the state, with numerous instances of crimes committed by individuals under the influence, leading to incarceration and hardship for their families. "Courts cannot direct the govt to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control," the order stated, adding that the petition amounted to a "misuse of judicial process," the division bench said. Dr Kale, appearing in person, argued that industrial hemp, with its low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content (0.3 to 1.5%), is not psychoactive and has various industrial, medical, and environmental benefits. He cited permissions for hemp cultivation in other states like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, as well as its historical and cultural significance in India. He also referred to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) notification regarding hemp seed and oil, and the ministry of ayush guidelines for hemp oil in medicines. The petitioner contended that the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, permits mass cultivation of hemp for horticultural and industrial uses, but the Chhattisgarh govt has not framed rules to facilitate its medical or industrial use. Opposing the petition, the state govt's advocate, Sangharsh Pandey, argued that the PIL was an attempt by the petitioner to secure permission for cannabis cultivation and commercial transactions. The high court, in its order, reiterated the importance of preserving the "purity and sanctity" of PILs, stating that genuine public interest litigations must be encouraged while discouraging frivolous ones. The bench cited previous Supreme Court judgments on the misuse of PILs, highlighting that courts should verify the credentials of petitioners and ensure the PIL aims to address genuine public harm or injury, without personal gain or ulterior motives. The court stated, "Under the garb of this public interest litigation petition, this court cannot encourage any such activity nor issue any direction to the State, which may turn to be a disaster in future. The reasons assigned by the petitioner to permit cultivation of cannabis in the state of Chhattisgarh is totally frivolous and baseless." The bench concluded that Dr Kale lacked locus standi and the petition was not a genuine public interest litigation. It observed that courts cannot direct govts to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control, which fall within the domain of the legislative and executive branches. HC also noted that cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited under the NDPS Act, except for specific permitted purposes with govt authorisation. HC dismissed the petition and forfeited the security amount deposited by the petitioner.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Health
- Indian Express
Chhattisgarh High Court dismiss PIL seeking hemp cultivation in state – ‘disaster in the future'
The Chhattisgarh High Court Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asking the state government to allow hemp cultivation for industrial and medical purposes, calling it a 'disaster in the future'. A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta said that the petitioner, 'under the garb of' a PIL, was asking for 'permitting him (petitioner) cultivation & developing ecosystem of industrial hemp/cannabis, in the interest of Chhattisgarh State,' In his petition, the petitioner — a Dr. Sachin Kale — asked the government to 'define' industrial hemp and 'to authorize the growing and possessing of industrial hemp, facilitate the cultivation, processing and use of industrial and medical hemp so that the local people can be benefited through its commercial usage and also are able to avail its medicinal properties'. The petitioner underlined several benefits of hemp ranging from medicine, economic, social environmental purposes adding the plant has references in holy books and Indian culture even citing a British era report, adding that he approached the court after his representation to the Chhattisgarh government on February 22, 2024, didn't get a response. Calling hemp as 'Golden Plant' and 'New Generation Gold Mines' for farmers of Chhattisgarh, he contended that the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act states mass cultivation of hemp for horticultural and industrial uses is permitted under the Indian law, and that state government has the power to decide the limits within which licences may be given. Despite that, he argued, no regulation has been made by the government to facilitate medical or industrial use of the plant. To make his case, he cited the examples of states Uttarakhand, which in 2018, become the first state in India to legalise the cultivation of industrial hemp for commercial use, and Himachal Pradesh. 'Uttarakhand has issued detailed guidelines on the cultivation of Industrial Hemp and Himachal Pradesh has constituted the committee for investigation & possibility of cultivation of Industrial Hemp,' he said. The bench, however, did not buy the argument. Calling the petition a misuse of judicial process, the bench said courts cannot direct the government to make policy decisions — particularly on sensitive subjects such as narcotic control. The consumption of cannabis is a matter of grave concern, it said, adding: 'The consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances in the State of Chhattisgarh has increased manifolds in the recent years and it not only has evil effects on the body and mind of the person consuming it, but it ruins the entire family and society as well'.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC flags rising drug abuse, rejects PIL seeking hemp cultivation
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the state government to permit cultivation and development of an ecosystem for industrial hemp/cannabis. The court observed that the petition, filed by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, appeared to have a "personal gain, private motive and oblique motive" and was an attempt to get permission for commercial transactions of cannabis products. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while hearing the petition, noted the significant increase in the consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances across Chhattisgarh in recent years. The bench stated that such consumption has "evil effects on the body and mind of the person consuming it, but it ruins the entire family and society as well." The court emphasised that offences related to contraband and psychotropic substances are on the rise in the state, with numerous instances of crimes committed by individuals under the influence, leading to incarceration and hardship for their families. 'Courts cannot direct the Government to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control,' the order stated, adding that the petition amounted to a 'misuse of judicial process,' the Division Bench stated. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why! Techno Mag Learn More Undo by Taboola by Taboola Dr. Kale, appearing in person, argued that industrial hemp, with its low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content (0.3 to 1.5%), is not psychoactive and has various industrial, medical, and environmental benefits. He cited permissions for hemp cultivation in other states like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, as well as its historical and cultural significance in India. He also referred to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) notification regarding hemp seed and oil, and the Ministry of Ayush guidelines for hemp oil in medicines. The petitioner contended that the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, permits mass cultivation of hemp for horticultural and industrial uses, but the Chhattisgarh government has not framed rules to facilitate its medical or industrial use. Opposing the petition, the state government's advocate, Sangharsh Pandey, argued that the PIL was an attempt by the petitioner to secure permission for cannabis cultivation and commercial transactions. The High Court, in its order, reiterated the importance of preserving the "purity and sanctity" of PILs, stating that genuine public interest litigations must be encouraged while discouraging frivolous ones. The bench cited previous Supreme Court judgments on the misuse of PILs, highlighting that courts should verify the credentials of petitioners and ensure the PIL aims to address genuine public harm or injury, without personal gain or ulterior motives. The court stated, "Under the garb of this public interest litigation petition, this Court cannot encourage any such activity nor issue any direction to the State, which may turn out to be a disaster in future. The reasons assigned by the petitioner to permit cultivation of cannabis in the State of Chhattisgarh are totally frivolous and baseless." The bench concluded that Dr. Kale lacked locus standi and the petition was not a genuine public interest litigation. It observed that courts cannot direct governments to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control, which fall within the domain of the legislative and executive branches. The court also noted that cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited under the NDPS Act, except for specific permitted purposes with government authorisation. The High Court dismissed the petition and forfeited the security amount deposited by the petitioner.
