$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23^rdJanuary, 2026 Uploaded on: 31^st January, 2026 + W.P.(C) 7608/2019 GREAT LEGALISATION MOVEMENT INDIA TRUST .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Abhishek, Mr. Avinash Sharma, Mr. Sidhi Pramodh and Mr.

Praveen Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.AnubhaBhardwaj,CGSCforUOI with Ms. Ananya Shamshery, Ms. Anchal Kashyap and Mr. Vijay Misra, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Great Legislation Movement India Trust under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the vires of Sections 8(b), 8(c), first proviso to Section 8, Sections 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27-31a, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48, 54, 60, and Entry 13 of the Schedule of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘the NDPS Act’) and Rules 52a, 53, 58, 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘the NDPS Rules’) as violative of Article 14, 19,21, 25,29 of the Constitution of India.

3. A brief background of the present case is that, the Petitioner is a trust registered under Indian Trusts Act,1882 which operates in Karnataka. One of the primary objects of the Petitioner is to decriminalize the use of cannabis and also for raising awareness in respect of its medicinal, industrial, economic, ecological and other benefits.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that there are various international developments which deserve to be considered in respect of the provisions of the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules. In this regard, the Petitioner relies upon the following materials:

i. Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, 1894 ii. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 iii. Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 iv. Legislative Debates v. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 vi. WHO Expert Committee Report on Drug Dependence Pre-review – Section 4 Therapeutic Use vii. Article titled “Medical Marijuana” published in the Harvard Health Blog on January 15, 2018 viii. Relevant Extracts of a document titled ‘The Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia of India’ published by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare ix. Relevant Extracts of a document titled ‘Siddha Pharmacopeia of India’ published by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare x. Judgment delivered by the Alaskan Supreme Court in Ravin vs State of Alaska, 537 P.2d 494 xi. Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of South Africa in Gareth Prince vs Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development (CCT

108/17)

5. Further,itisalsothecaseofthePetitionerthattheimpugnedprovisions of the NDPS Act and NDPS Rules prohibit and criminalize the use of cannabis as also put unreasonable restrictions on its usage.

6. On the other hand, the stand of the Union of India as per its written submissions is that, provisions of the NDPS Act relating to cannabis do not violate Articles 14, 19,21, 25, 29 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that by including a distinct definition of cannabis under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, a clear distinction has been drawn between various parts of the cannabis plant namely the fiber, the flower and the seed and all derivatives are not treated equally.

7. Further, it is also the case of the Union of India that there is not a complete ban on the use of cannabis and NDPS Act has incorporated sufficient provisions to allow the use of cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes. Reliance is also placed upon the International Narcotics Control Board Annual Report, 2018, which shows that various states have passed legislations allowing patients suffering from certain conditions such as terminal cancer, epilepsy and neurological illness, to use cannabis in treating symptoms of their illness. According to the Union of India, cannabi