Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondents (State of Chhattisgarh and its various departments) to decide his representation dated February 22, 2024. In this representation, the petitioner requested permission to cultivate and develop an ecosystem for industrial hemp/cannabis in the state, citing guidelines under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the Constitution of India. He argued that mass cultivation of hemp for horticultural and industrial uses is permitted by Indian law, but the State of Chhattisgarh has not made rules or regulations to facilitate its medical or industrial use. He also highlighted that hemp products are categorized under GST, indicating government revenue generation from their trade. The State counsel opposed the petition, viewing it as an attempt to gain permission for cannabis cultivation and commercial transactions.

Held

The Court held that it cannot encourage activities related to narcotic and psychotropic substances, given the observed increase in their consumption and the detrimental effects on individuals and society. The Court found the petitioner's reasons for permitting cannabis cultivation to be frivolous and baseless. It ruled that the petitioner lacks locus standi and that the petition is not genuine. The Court emphasized that the petitioner approached the Court seeking directions that fall within the domain of legislative and executive policy of the State, and courts cannot direct the government to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control. The Court noted that cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited under the NDPS Act, save for specific permitted purposes and through statutory procedures, and the petitioner had not followed the appropriate legal mechanisms. The Court concluded that the petition constituted a misuse of the judicial process. Previously, the petitioner had filed a public interest litigation (WP(PIL) No.09 of 2025) which was dismissed by a Division Bench on July 7, 2025. Therefore, no relief could be granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can direct the State to decide the petitioner's representation seeking permission for industrial hemp cultivation, given the sensitive nature of narcotic control and the petitioner's alleged lack of locus standi? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the executive/legislative policy of the State). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is seeking a direction for the respondents to decide his representation, not challenging any specific order. He highlighted the potential benefits of industrial hemp, citing its permitted cultivation under the NDPS Act for industrial uses and referencing notifications from FSSAI and the Ministry of Ayush. He also pointed out that hemp is categorized under GST, implying commercial activity and revenue generation. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel argued that the petition is an attempt to obtain permission for cannabis cultivation and commercial transactions. They contended that the petitioner has no locus standi and that the petition is not genuine. The State emphasized that courts cannot direct the government to make policy decisions, especially in sensitive areas like narcotic control, and that cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited under the NDPS Act except for specific permitted purposes through statutory procedures.