The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale seeking directions to the State Government to allow the cultivation and regulation of industrial hemp, holding that the judiciary cannot interfere in matters falling within the exclusive domain of legislative or executive policy.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the judgment in WPPIL No. 9 of 2025, emphasizing that the scope of PIL is limited to addressing genuine issues of public harm or injury and cannot be used to advance personal or policy agendas.
Dr. Kale, appearing in person, had prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the State authorities to define industrial hemp based on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, establish a regulatory framework for licensing cultivation, and allow its usage for industrial and medical purposes. He submitted that industrial hemp has numerous economic, environmental, and medicinal benefits, and highlighted representations he had submitted to the State which, according to him, had not received any response.
He further cited various constitutional provisions—Articles 21, 29, 41, 47, and 48A—to assert that promoting hemp cultivation aligns with public health and environmental objectives. Dr. Kale also referred to policy developments in other states such as Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and relied on historical documents including the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report of 1894.
However, opposing the petition, the State’s counsel Mr. Sangharsh Pandey argued that the plea was an attempt by the petitioner to obtain individual permission to cultivate cannabis for commercial purposes, and did not meet the requirements of a bonafide public interest litigation.
The Court noted that it is the duty of the judiciary to verify the credentials and motives of PIL petitioners to prevent misuse of the jurisdiction. Citing judgments of the Supreme Court including State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, the Bench underscored that PILs filed with oblique motives must be strongly discouraged.
Referring to the rising instances of narcotics-related offences in the State, the Bench observed:
“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 Court concluded that the cultivation of cannabis is generally prohibited under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, except for medical, scientific, industrial, or horticultural purposes and only with express government authorization. It held that policy decisions related to such regulation are within the legislative and executive sphere and do not warrant judicial interference.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it with the observation:
“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.”
The security amount deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be forfeited.
