1. Challenge to vires of NDPS Act provisions relating to cannabis as violative of constitutional rights, seeking decriminalization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
GREAT LEGALISATION MOVEMENT INDIA TRUST – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-7608/2019
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Abhishek, Avinash Sharma, Sidhi Pramodh, Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: Anubha Bhardwaj, Ananya Shamshery, Anchal Kashyap, Vijay Misra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Abhishek, Avinash Sharma, Sidhi Pramodh, Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: Anubha Bhardwaj, Ananya Shamshery, Anchal Kashyap, Vijay Misra
Deciding whether to dilute the prohibitions on cannabis use is a policy decision resting with the executive and is not suitable for judicial adjudication; such matters should be resolved through stakeholder consultations and formal regulatory reviews.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27-31a, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48, 54, 60 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 - Rules 52a, 53, 58, 60 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 29 - Challenge to the vires of provisions criminalizing the use of cannabis - Allegation that the impugned provisions impose unreasonable restrictions and violate fundamental rights - Contention that international developments and medicinal/industrial benefits warrant decriminalization - Response that the Act provides a balanced approach with exemptions for medicinal, scientific, and industrial purposes subject to government orders - Court's view that the permission and regulation of cannabis use involves formal regulations and constitutes a policy decision rather than an issue for judicial adjudication at this stage. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
A trust filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of various sections of the NDPS Act and the associated Rules, arguing that they violate fundamental rights. The petitioner sought the decriminalization of cannabis, relying on international reports and judicial precedents from other jurisdictions to highlight the medicinal and industrial benefits of the plant. The respondent argued that the Act already distinguishes between different parts of the cannabis plant and allows for its use in medical, scientific, and industrial capacities via statutory permissions and state government regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the use of cannabis, if to be permitted, must be governed by formal regulations. Such a determination is a policy decision and not an issue for adjudication by the court at this stage. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the challenged provisions of the NDPS Act and Rules are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, and 29 of the Constitution, and whether the court can direct a review of these policy-driven prohibitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regulation of cannabis is a matter of policy. Consequently, the court declined to adjudicate on the vires of the provisions and instead directed the government to undertake a stakeholder consultation and review whether a dilution of the provisions is necessary and for what purposes. (Paras 10-11)
Result: Petition disposed of with a direction to the government to conduct stakeholder consultations and take a decision within six months, treating the petition as a representation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
- writ jurisdiction (Para 2)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued for decriminalization based on international developments; Union contended provisions are constitutional and allow regulated use. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Court noted the matter involves policy considerations and directed Union to conduct stakeholder consultation on diluting cannabis provisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Whether to dilute NDPS Act provisions on cannabis is a policy decision, not a judicial adjudication at this stage. (Para 10 )
5. Petition disposed with direction to Union to hold stakeholder consultation and decide on representation within six months. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Is the challenge to the vires of NDPS Act provisions on cannabis justiciable as a constitutional question?
The court held that the matter involves policy considerations and directed the Union to conduct a stakeholder consultation rather than adjudicating the constitutional challenge at this stage. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. What procedure should the Union follow to consider changes to cannabis regulations under the NDPS Act?
The court directed the Union to treat the petition as a representation and conduct a stakeholder consultation with relevant ministries, experts, and petitioner, with NCB as nodal officer. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23rdJanuary, 2026 Uploaded on: 31st 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
