Chhattisgarh High Court Junks PIL Seeking Hemp Cultivation For Industrial Use, Flags Rising Drug Abuse

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru taking note of the concerning increase in consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances in Chhattisgarh, observed that such substances not only have a detrimental effect on the body and mind of the consumer– often leading to commission of crimes in an inebriated state, but also ruins the family which suffers acutely, particularly when the sole bread earner is lodged in jail.

The Division Bench further held,

“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 petitioner does not have any locus standi and it is not a genuine public interest litigation. It is well settled that no public interest litigation would lie if the same involves personal interests. The petitioner has approached this Court under the garb of public interest, seeking directions which fall squarely within the domain of legislative and executive policy of the State. Courts cannot direct the Government to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control. The cultivation of hemp is prohibited under the NDPS Act, save for specific permitted purposes and through statutory procedure. Cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited except for medical, scientific, industrial, or horticultural purposes and only with government authorization. The petitioner has neither demonstrated any public interest nor followed the appropriate legal mechanisms. The present is a petition which can be termed as misuse of judicial process.”

Background

The PIL petition had prayed before the Court to—- (i) define industrial hemp based on the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) it contains, (ii) authorise growing and possession of industrial hemp by creating an advisory board or commission alongwith establishing or authorising a state licensing or registration program, by removing restrictions to facilitate the cultivation, processing and use of industrial and medical hemp so that local people can benefit through its commercial usage and medicinal properties, and (iii) direct the State to permit the petitioner to cultivate and develop ecosystem of hemp/cannabis in Chhattisgarh.

The primary reason behind filing of the PIL was to tap on the economic, social, and environmental benefits of hemp, a 'golden plant', for the betterment of life of Chhattisgarh citizens. The petitioner termed the 'golden plant' as potentially the “New Generation of Gold Mines” for farmers of Chhattisgarh. He contended that while NDPS Act permits cultivation of hemp for horticultural and industrial uses, Sections 10 and 14 gives State Government the power to decide the limits within which licences may be given for its cultivation, however, the same power has never been used and no regulation or rules have been made to facilitate medical or industrial use of the plant.

The petitioner argued that various government bodies had recognised the utility of hemp and acknowledged its role in commercial activity. For instance, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) allowed its use in food products subject to “confirming standard”; the Ministry of Ayush had mandated Central Government approval for hemp oil-based medicines; and the Government had categorised it in the Goods & Services Code. It was further submitted that there were many references to the same in holy books such as Sushruta Samhita, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and others, which indicated the significant heritage of cannabis in Indian culture and medicine.

The petitioner also took the support of constitutional provisions such as Article 21— which includes right to health as a fundamental right, Article 29— which protects interests and culture of minorities, Article 41— which provides right to assistance in cases of sickness and disablement, Article 47— which makes improvement of public health a primary duty of State, and Article 48A— which ensures that State shall endeavour to protect and impose a pollution free environment for good health.

The petitioner further highlighted the work of the colonial-era Indian Hemp Drugs Commission which had traced the ancient roots of herbal cannabis (bhang) among Hindus and concluded that it was harmless in moderation, especially in comparison to alcohol, and suppressing use of the same could encourage outcries by religious clerics and possibly lead to the use of more dangerous narcotics.

The petitioner lastly submitted that Hemp offers vast industrial and medical potential, yet current policies which mandated its destruction caused environmental pollution, loss of biodiversity, and damage to soil health. Such administrative decisions are not only harmful to the environment but also jeopardise people's access to a valuable natural resource.

On the contrary, the State argued that the petition was nothing but an attempt to somehow get permission from the State to cultivate cannabis and carry on its commercial transaction.

Court's Findings:

At the outset, the Court noted that it is duty bound to preserve the purity and sanctity of PIL, and in the process— encourage only bonafide and genuine PILs while discouraging those filed for extraneous considerations. It further reiterated that before entertaining a PIL, the Court must ensure that the same addresses a genuine public harm or public injury, and that no personal gain or private or oblique motive lies behind the filing of the PIL.

Against this backdrop, the Court held that the petitioner has no locus standi and the PIL involved personal interests of the petitioner. Further, the Court observed that under the garb of public interest, the petitioner demanded the Court to interfere in a domain which exclusively belongs to the legislature and executive.

Dismissing the petition, the Court thus held,

“We are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Case Details:

Case Number: WPPIL No. 9 of 2025

Case Title: Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order