1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32
for ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS)
In

the

Matter

of

Criminal Public Interest

Litigation

No.

18

of

2015 filed under Article

226,
Honble

dismissed
Bombay

by
High

Court by its order dated

04.09.2015.

Aditya Barthakur

Age: 35, Occupation: Advocate

R/at:

Deleted

}
}
Pune

}
.Petitioner
Versus

1. Department of Health and Family Welfare, }

Government of India, Nirman Bhavan,

New Delhi 110011.

2. Department of Health Research

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

}
}

2nd Floor, IRCS Building, Red Cross

Road, New Delhi 110001.

3. Indian Council of Medical Research

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Government of India, V. Ramlingaswami

Bhavan, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi -110029. }

4. The Director-in-Charge,

National Institute of Nutrition,

Jamai-Osmania, Hyderabad 500007.

5. Central Bureau of Narcotics,

19, The Mall, Morar,

Gwalior - 474 006.

6. Legislative Department Room No.416,

A-Wing, Fourth Floor, Shastri Bhawan,

}
}

M/o. Law and Justice,New Delhi 110001. }

7. Law Commission of India, 14th Floor,

Hindustan Times House K. G. Marg,

New Delhi 110001.

8. Union of India ,

9. State of Maharashtra,

10. Narcotics Control Bureau

West Block 1, Wing No. V, R.K. Puram

New Delhi 66.

}
Respondents

TO,
THE

HONBLE

CHIEF

JUSTICE

OF

INDIA

AND

HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE

HUMBLE

OF

THE

PETITION

PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED.
Most Respectfully Sheweth:1.

Petitioner states that the petitioner is

an

Advocate

practicing

in

the

Pune

District Court. Petitioner had challenged

the inclusion of Cannabis (Ganja, Bhang,
Charas/ Hashish) in the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic

Substances

Act,

1985,

(hereinafter referred to NDPS Act for sake

of

brevity

ultra

and

vires,

convenience),
the

provisions

as

being,
of

our

Constitution by filing a Criminal Public

Interest

Litigation

(hereinafter

No.

referred

18

to

as

of

2015

Cri.Pil

for

sake of brevity and convenience), before

the Honble Bombay High Court, inter-alia,
on

grounds

mentioned

therein.

Hereto

annexed and marked as Annexure P-1 is the

certified

true

copy

of

the

Cri.Pil

No.18/2015.

I.

Brief facts of the Case:-

a. Petitioner had supported his contentions

in

the

Cri.Pil

petitioners

Right

Applications
RTI

with

replies

to

Information

(hereinafter

for

sake

of

referred
brevity

convenience);

which

received

respondents,

from

to

and

petitioner
to

to

had

clearly

show that none of the respondents were

aware of, as to how was consumption of
Cannabis

in

any

form

harmful

to

us

humans, or, the reasons for why it was

illegal in the first place.
b. Feeling let down for not receiving any
scientific,

medical

or

logical

reasons

justifying the inclusion of Cannabis in

NDPS

Act,

with

punishment,

and,

experiencing
when

the

such

on

one

shock,

occasion

awe

petitioner

stringent

and

also

disbelief,

received

reply

dated 28.11.2014 from National Institute

of

Nutrition,

nothing

but

National
Jersey

Hyderabad,
copy

pasted

Highways

website,

which

was

reply

from

Authority

having

no

of

New

bearing

on

citizens of our great nation, forced the

petitioner to put in his own research to
know why Cannabis (ganja, bhang, charas/
hashish) was illegal.

c.

Petitioner while on his blissful journey

of

studying

incredible
Chemists,

Cannabis

research

came

of

across

Doctors,

Microbiologist,

findings

Bioin

the Indian Hemp Drug Commission Report,

1893-94,
absolute

et

al.,

joy

cannabinoids

and

and

i.e.,

found

to

amazement

his
that

Tetrahydrocannabinol

(THC/ delta 9 THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD)

present

in

Cannabis,

and,

the

endocannabinoid

system

we

humans

are

born with, made Cannabis a perfect life

partner to us humans. In short Mother
Nature has given us an incredible plant
when consumed helped develop homeostasis
(to

develop

stable

internal

environment irrespective of whatever be

the external environment).

d. Petitioner

had

thus

supported

the

Cri.Pil with scientific research to show

that

we

humans

are

all

born

with

an

endocannabinoid system, and, hence were

fundamentally wired to consume Cannabis,
a

gods

greatest

gift

humanity.

Petitioner had also produced scientific

research
with
of

to

prove

scientific
Cannabis

the

facts
be

it

said
that

assertion

consumption

ganja,

bhang,

charas/hashish helped cure many diseases

including

dreaded

disease

like

cancer,

or at least reduce pain experienced by

patients suffering from various types of
other ailments, naturally.

e. Petitioner
notice

had

of

thus

Honble

brought

Bombay

to

High

the

Court,

that to include a plant (Cannabis) in

the NDPS Act, with stringent punishment,
without

backing

scientific
only

or

it

up

logical

to

medical,

reasons

contravention

amounted

with

of,

continued

was

but

not

also,

impingement,

derogation and violation of Article 21

of

our

Constitution,

fundamental

right,

enforceable

especially

when,

30

years have gone by since the NDPS Act

was enacted.

f.

Petitioner in the Cri.Pil was relying on

the

Power

of

Judicial

Review

of

Court,

along

with,

Constitutional
Doctrine

of

Severability,

read

with,

Doctrine of Separation of Powers, read

with,

Doctrine

of

Pith

and

Substance,

read with Article 13(2) and Article 21

and

Article

47

read

with

Article

253

read with Entry 13 List 1 Schedule 7 of

our Constitution.

g. Petitioner

was

also

relying

on

Fundamental Duties i.e., Article 51A (h)

and (j), as petitioner wanted to share
his
with

research

on

benefits

respondents,

which

of

the

Cannabis

petitioner

has done, and hence, for all the reasons

mentioned
Cri.Pil

hereinabove,

had

invoked

jurisdiction

of

and,

the

in

the

extra-ordinary

Honble

Bombay

High

Court.

h. Petitioner was neither praying for any

relief against the respondents nor was
seeking

any

action

Information
Institute
had

Officer

of

shown

Nutrition,

the

information

audacity
from

against
of

the

National

Hyderabad,
to

copy

the

who

paste

website

aforementioned and sent it as a reply to

petitioners RTI query, a serious, and,
an
Act.

unpardonable

contravention

of

RTI

i.

However, Honble Bombay High Court was

pleased to dismiss the Cri.Pil preferred
by

the

petitioner

04.09.2015,

on

by

the

its

order

grounds

dated

that

the

petitioner could raise the issue in the

Parliament. Hereto annexed and marked as
Annexure P-2 is the certified true copy
of the order dated 04.09.2015 dismissing
the Cri.Pil preferred by the petitioner.

j.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order

of

the

Honble

Bombay

High

Court,

petitioner is before this Honble Court,

bestowed

with

pious

obligation

to

enforce fundamental rights under Article

32, for the reasons that, inclusion of
Cannabis

in

punishment

NDPS
is

Act

not

with

stringent

backed

by

any

scientific, medical or logical reasons,

whatsoever.

So

constitutional

basis

what
on

is
which

the
We

The

People are being prevented from growing

and consuming a plant?

10

k.

Petitioner

states

that

such

ban

on

Mother Nature directly tramples upon and

continues
Article

to
21

citizens

violate,
of

and

criminally

our

and,

derogate

Constitution,

non-citizens

prosecuted

for

are

as

being

cultivation,

sale, transportation and consumption of

Cannabis.

II. Substantial

Question

of

Law

as

to

Interpretation of our Constitution:-

a. Petitioner

has

already

brought

to

the

notice

the

Honble

Court

that

30

of

years have gone by since the NDPS Act

was enacted and till date none of the
respondents know as to why Cannabis is
illegal

or

how

is

consumption

of

Cannabis harmful to us humans.

b. Petitioner has annexed at Annexure P-1,

a copy of the Cri.Pil preferred by the
petitioner

before

Honble

Bombay

High

Court and also annexed at Annexure P-2

true copy of the order dated 04.09.2015,

11

passed

by

wherein

Honble

Honble

Bombay

Bombay

High

High

Court,

Court

has

asked the petitioner to raise the issue

in the Parliament.

c. Hence

the

following

petitioner

is

substantial

interpretation

of

raising

questions

our

the

as

to

Constitution

in

public interest:SRL. NO.

Substantial

Questions

Interpretation
1.

as

of

to
our

Constitution
Can a plant (Cannabis) be made
illegal/banned without backing
such

ban

with

medical,

scientific or logical reasons;

2.

Can any citizen or non-citizen

be

criminally

prosecuted

and

sent to prison for 10 or 20

years,

and,

destroyed

their

for

lives

cultivation,

consumption, sale or transport

of a plant (Cannabis), and, be
also imposed a maximum fine of
Rs.

lacs,

especially

when

the illegality of the plant is

12

not

backed

by

scientific,

medical or logical reasons;

3.

Even

if

it

were

case

of

reasonable restriction to make

Cannabis illegal, then should
such reasonable restriction be
not

backed

by

scientific,

medical or logical reasons, or

at

least

when

properly

explained,

such

reasonable

restriction

co-relates

with

health of us humans;
4.

If the petitioner is required

to raise the issues he speaks
of

in

Cri.Pil

Parliament

then

in

what

the

is

the

role of Constitutional Courts,

especially

High

Courts,

protector,

and,

or,

of fundamental

as

enforcer

rights when an

application Under Article 226

has a wider scope, in that it
relates to the enforcement of
fundamental

as

well

as

ordinary legal rights;

5.

In

Kishore

Samrite

versus

13

State
AIR

of

U.P

SCW

appeal

and

5802,
no.

ors.,
in

1406

2012

criminal
of

2012

decided on 18.10.2012, wherein

Swatenter Kumar, J., as he was
then, in paragraph No. 29 lays
down in detail the conditions
on when/what amounts to abuse
of

the

process

considering
absolute
litigant

of

that

Court.
it

obligation
to

is
on

approach

So
an
the
the

courts with clean hands should

this absolute obligation also
not apply to the State? As in
when

the

State

criminally

prosecutes anyone for offence

in relation to Cannabis should
such inclusion of Cannabis in
NDPS

Act

be

not

backed

by

scientific, medical or logical

reasons?
6.

If the real purpose of the RTI

Act is to make citizens aware,
and,

even

if

Petitioner

does

14

not

pray

for,

Constitutional
motu,

not

should

Courts

reprimand

suo
public

bodies that take the Right To

Information

Act,

2005,

for

granted by sending information

by

copy

pasting

information

from some foreign website.

2.

Petitioner states that the Honble Bombay

High

Court

has

unfortunately

for

the

petitioner, by turning a blind eye to the

scientific
the

Cri.Pil

research
not

on

produced,
merits

dismissed

but

on

the

grounds that Honble Bombay High Court was

not expert in the field.

3.

Petitioner states that the only expertise,

or, question for determination before the
Honble Bombay High Court was if inclusion
of Cannabis in NDPS Act was devoid of any
medical,

scientific

or

logical

reasons,

and, hence does such inclusion amounts to

an illegality which goes on to trample,
and,

continues

to

derogate

upon

15

enforceable fundamental rights especially

Article

21

and

Article

13(2)

of

our

Constitution.

4.

Petitioner states that thus Honble Bombay

High

Court

has

abdicated

not

from

Constitutional
judicial

only

enforcer

but

also

exercising

Powers

review,

erred

as

i.e.,

fundamental

its

power

protector
rights

of

and

when

or
an

application Under Article 226 has a wider

scope,

in

that

enforcement

of

it

relates

fundamental

to

as

well

the
as

ordinary legal rights.

5.

Petitioner hence states that the principle

of res-judicata would not apply for the
reason that if the serious infraction of
fundamental
corrected

rights

forthwith

Severability,
Law,

aforementioned
the

Natural

Separation

of

is

not

Doctrines

of

Justice,

Powers,

Rule

Securing

of
the

Ends of Justice, Abuse of the Process of

Court would not only look like a helpless
child

wailing

for

the

mother,

but

also

16

because the ideals and aspirations of the

framers

and

the

basic

structure

of

our

Constitution would too stand annihilated.

6.

The

liberty

of

citizens

of

our

great

nation and also non-citizens is at stake

as a plant Cannabis, gods greatest gift
to

humanity,

has

been

outlawed

for

the

reasons best know to those who included it

in the NDPS Act. Petitioner is standing
knocking

on

the

doors

on

this

Honble

Court speaking on behalf of Mother Nature

that one of her child named Cannabis be
forthwith be released from the clutches of
NDPS Act, a draconian law, for the benefit
of present and future generations.

7.

Petitioner has no other remedy other than

approach this Honble Court under Article
32 of our Constitution.

8.

There is no other Criminal Public Interest

Litigation filed by the petitioner before
any other High Court after being dismissed

17

by

Honble

Bombay

High

Court

seeking

this

Honble

similar relief.

9.

Petitioner

has

Court

clean

only

with
the

humans,

approached
hands

benefit
acting

to

on

keeping

himself

bona

in

and

fide

mind

fellow

grounds

to

vindicate the cause of justice and is not

actuated

by

political

motive

or

other

oblique consideration or he is not a mere

busybody or interloper.

10. Petitioner craves leave to refer to and

rely on Acts, Reports and other scientific
evidence

in

support

of

his

petition

as

when called upon to do so by this Honble

Court.
11. Petitioner

carves

leave

to

add,

amend,

delete, change, alter, modify any of the

foregone

grounds

with

the

permission

of

this Honble Court.

12. Petitioner to sum up the entire fiasco of

our Constitutional morals, ethics and code

18

of

conduct,

include
Act,

plant

without

with

vehemently

states

(Cannabis)

backing

medical,

such

scientific

that,

to

in

the

an

inclusion

or

NDPS

logical

reasons, even when 30 years have passed

since the draconian law was enacted, of
any

ill

health

effects
not

of

only

Cannabis

continues

on

to

fundamental rights i.e., Article

human
violate

21 r/w.

Article 13(2) of our Constitution but also

amounts

to

an

extremely

immoral,

and,

illegal act on part of the State to send

the

cultivators,

transporters

to

consumers,
the

gallows

sellers
and

and

destroy

their lives.

Petitioner therefore prays in Public Interest

as under:-

i.

This Honble Court acting as sentinel on

the qui vive be pleased to call for the
record

and

proceedings

Public

Interest

in

the

Criminal

Litigation

No.

18/2015,

dismissed by Honble Bombay High Court by

19

its order dated 04.09.2015 and on perusal

thereof be pleased to grant the prayers
mentioned therein.

ii. Honble
other

Court

just

and

be

pleased

equitable

to

pass

order

in

any
the

interest of justice.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
Drawn and Filed by:

Aditya Barthakur
Petitioner-in-Person
Drawn on:23.09.2015
Filed on: 28.09.2015