When Bela Trivedi opened the hearing on October 3, 2023, for the Writ Petition Diary Number 23878 of 2023 in Court 6 as Item 12 saying, "Let us warn you, you have two choices - dismissal of the case or imposition of costs", I misunderstood her. I understood the second choice of this catch 22 statement as meaning that I would need to be willing to bear the costs of conducting the case for ganja and charas legalization as per my writ petition in the Supreme Court of India. I was totally clueless as to the subject matter value of the case. Yes, I had written in the writ petition that legalizing ganja and charas in India could be beneficial to the country to the tune of Rs 25 lakh crores. But I had no idea how much the cost of conducting a trial would be, in which the respondent was the Revenue Secretary of the Department of Revenue under the Finance Ministry of the Indian government. In my mind, the costs I envisioned involved this person flying to Delhi, staying in five-star hotels and having lavish parties for which the bills would be submitted in the court, and I would be required to foot the bill. I had barely enough money in my bank account to finance my trip to New Delhi and attend the hearing, so paying for the cost of the trial was totally out of the question. This - besides the hostility of Bela Trivedi's opening statement - is what made me speechless and pause for a few moments before I spoke. It was only much later, when I saw Bela Trivedi imposing costs on various petitioners that I understood she actually meant that she would fine me when she said, "imposition of costs".
As I said in Part 1, when I went back to the hotel in the evening after the hearing of the writ petition on October 3rd, 2023 and checked the Case Details on the Supreme Court website, the court order had not yet been uploaded, but the Status/Stage and Disposal Type fields for the writ petition said 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed'. Based on my misunderstanding of what Bela Trivedi said, and seeing the Disposal Type for the writ petition as 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed', I decided - on the two-and-a-half day train journey back to Bengaluru from New Delhi - that I would file a special leave petition (SLP) stating that I could not afford to bear the costs of conducting the trial, and that I did not even know what such costs would amount to.
As soon as I was back in Bengaluru, I checked the Supreme Court website for the court order. The court order had been uploaded but on opening it I found that it only said that "We do not find any reason to entertain this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
There was no mention in the court order of the "Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed" statement that appeared in the Status/Stage and Disposal Type fields of the Case Details on the Supreme Court website. Now, whether the statement "Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed" made in the Status/Stage and Disposal Type fields of the Case Details was an addition by somebody, or its absence in the Court Order was an omission made by somebody, and whether this was willfully done, or in error, is a mystery that only the Supreme Court of India can solve.
For me, the path was clear. The Status/Stage and Disposal Type fields in the Case Details on the Supreme Court website said, 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed' and so I started working on a special leave petition (SLP). I worked on this for about two weeks. I stated in the special leave petition (which is included at the end of this article along with the subsequent order) that I had been unable to gauge the cost of the subject matter and so I had remained silent when Bela Trivedi presented me with the two choices of dismissal or costs. I also stated in the SLP that I was an indigent person with no income for the past 14 years, barring a brief period of employment for about 7 months in between. I provided details of my possessions, my expenses, and included my bank statements for the preceding two years. I stated that I had devoted the last six years to researching this matter, and that I had prepared the writ petition through about three months of work, had traveled to New Delhi at my own cost, and had generally put in a lot of time and effort into the matter already, so asking me to also bear the burden of costs for conducting the trial was unfair. I stated that given my current bank balance, I could afford to pay no more than Rs 5000 towards the cost of conducting the case.
In addition to the statements in the special leave petition regarding my financial status, I stated that this case was of great significance to India since it involved the fundamental rights violations of hundreds of millions of the poorest Indians. I stated that there were vast economic, social, environmental, healthcare and legal benefits that ganja and charas legalization would bring for India. I also stated that this was probably the most important case in the Supreme Court of India's history and would be a landmark case like no other.
Once I had prepared the special leave petition, I filed it in the last week of October in the new Supreme Court e-Filing website now available after the old one had been migrated and decommissioned. I got a response from the Supreme Court Registry the very next day itself. The Registry rejected the special leave petition stating that it was not maintainable since I had filed a petition challenging the order of the Supreme Court. Thinking that there were issues with the format in which I had filed the SLP - I had filed it as a single file - I broke it into separate files that map to the index and re-filed it. This was again rejected by the Registry with the same reason cited as in the previous case. I wrote to e-Filing a couple of times asking the reason for why the special leave petition was not maintainable, especially given the Status/Stage and Disposal Type fields stating 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed' but got no response. So, I submitted the petition again. This time the reason for rejection was slightly modified. It still said that the petition was not maintainable since I was challenging an order by the Supreme Court. But it also said that I was "requested to file complete and proper petition accordance to SCR. 2013."
On going through the Supreme Court Rules 2013 - PROVISIONS REGARDING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION, ORDER XXI, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CIVIL), I did not come across any rule that stated I could not file a special leave petition against an order by the Supreme Court.
Further, according to the Supreme Court of India Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure 2017, Chapter III CLASSIFICATION OF CASES, it states that - "8. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal – A petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution from an order of the High Court refusing to grant certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution or in any other case from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any Court or Tribunal, except relating to armed forces. It may be either civil or criminal." Here the statement "or in any other case from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any Court or Tribunal, except relating to armed forces" surely also meant that I could appeal against an order by the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction, especially when the court itself had given me permission to file an SLP/Appeal.
So, I intimated the Registry, asking them to clarify which SCR 2013 rules I needed to refer to. I did not receive this clarification. Instead, I was directed by one section in the Registry to contact another section in the Registry as the matter was not fresh. On requesting who the concerned section would be, I received no immediate response. In the meantime, I refiled the SLP after changing the jurisdiction in it from Appellate Jurisdiction to Extra-Ordinary Appellate Jurisdiction, thinking that there may be an issue with the jurisdiction under which I had filed the SLP. The Registry replied to my previous email stating that I was to contact the Public Interest Litigation - Writ (PIL-W) section. I replied stating that I did not wish to submit a PIL-W, and that I wished to submit the SLP that the judges had given me permission to file. The Registry rejected the submitted SLP with the same reasons as before. I again wrote asking the same questions but replied no answer regarding which Supreme Court Rules they were referring to, and why the SLP was not maintainable. I received no response for about four weeks. Finally in the first week of January 2024, I emailed the Registry asking to know if the repeated rejection of my SLP had anything to do with my refusal earlier in my writ petition to accept a Supreme Court appointed advocate or amicus curiae. I said that the limitation period for filing the SLP of 90 days was nearly over now due to the delays, and that I was amenable to a Supreme Court appointed advocate or amicus curiae if that was the reason for the repeated rejection of my SLP. In response to this email, I was asked to contact another section in the Registry. This is the classic situation being played out in the Supreme Court of a person being sent from department to department - like a pinball in a pinball machine - that is usually played out in government offices. All this was happening against the backdrop of a time limitation set on filing petitions. Delays that happen from the Registry in responding, finally require the petitioner to file an application condoning delay, thus adding to the workload of all concerned.
Finally, in the last week of January 2024 I saw the case status of the special leave petition on the e-Filing website change from 'Pending Acceptance' to 'Pending Scrutiny'. It was assigned a Diary Number - 3847 of 2024. This essentially meant that the Registry had processed the petition and that it was ready for scrutiny at the next stage. I kept checking the new e-filing site from January till April and did not see any change in status. The status of the SLP in the e-Filing site remained as 'Pending Scrutiny'. In April, I thought of checking the main Supreme Court site in addition to the e-Filing site and found in the Case Details for SLP 3847 of 2024 that the case status showed as 'Disposed' with the Disposal Type as 'Lodged'. Thinking that 'Lodged' meant that the matter was now ready to be placed before the judges after the Registry had processed it, I waited for a few more weeks to see if there was any change. Seeing no updates, I wrote to the Registry in the third week of May asking what this status and disposal type meant. The Registry wrote back to me the next day with a copy of an order by the Registrar dated 31st January 2024 attached.
When I went through the Registrar's order, I found that he had disposed the special leave petition Diary No. 3847 of 2024 on 31st January 2024, stating "As per the mandate of law Special Leave Petition arises out of an order of High Court/Tribunals/other subordinate courts vested with judicial powers. The instant leave petition is not maintainable since the same has been filed following the dismissal of writ petition by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner, in a manner trying to indulge himself in that second round of litigation which is a clear abuse of process of law. The petitioner may file appropriate petition as per law as the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere and not in the form of Special Leave Petition. He is in a manner trying to assail the judges of this Court in a writ petition by filing a special leave petition which is not permissible as per law." He further stated in his order that "In these circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case which attracts Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. and entails non-registration. Accordingly, I hereby, decline to receive and register the present petition as it does not disclose any reasonable cause under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013."
So, the Registrar had dismissed the special leave petition citing the same reasons that the Registry had given. There was no response as to which Supreme Court Rules stated that one could not file a special leave petition against a Supreme Court Order. There was also no response as to why the Status/Stage and Disposal Type fields in the Case Details for the writ petition Diary No. 23878 of 2023 stated 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed'. There was no response as to why this particular statement was present in the Case Details on the Supreme Court website and missing from the court order, and as to which of these two presentations of facts was in error. As I said earlier, the sole reason why I went down the special leave petition path was because of the statement 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed'. Otherwise, I would have filed a Review Petition against the Supreme Court's order dismission my writ petition Diary Number 23878 of 2023 in October 2023 but now the limitation period for filing a review has passed.
In the meantime, South Africa, whose Constitutional Court had ruled that cannabis prohibition was a violation of the constitutional rights of the individual a few years back, legalized cannabis for adult recreational use around April 2024 with its legislature finally acting on the order of the court. Germany, the biggest importer of medical cannabis till 2024, also legalized cannabis for adult recreational use in April with permission for home growing of up to three plants per household and permission for citizens to create cannabis growing clubs where up to 100 persons could pool in their resources and grow cannabis to meet their collective consumption needs. The reasons cited by the German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use were reduction of crime and protecting the youth. Both these are real benefits of cannabis legalization, as Canada has shown with dropping youth usage rates (as have the US states of Washington and Colorado) and the overtaking of black market sales in Canada by legal sales within two years of federal legalization. The unstated reason is probably that the German medical cannabis market was finding it difficult to procure cannabis from Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and Israel at the quantities and prices that it desired, given the demand surge across Europe, Asia and Oceania for medical cannabis and the shortage of medical cannabis exporting countries. Medical cannabis is, as I stated in various places, basically the elites of various nations consuming cannabis and calling it medicine, while when the poor classes of society - who are the traditional users for its medical and intoxicating properties - consume it, it becomes the illegal drug, ganja. Mexico, whose Supreme Court, like South Africa's Constitutional Court, also ruled that cannabis prohibition was a violation of fundamental rights of the individual a few years back, has not yet legalized cannabis for recreational use through legislature. The reasons for the delay by Mexico's legislature are quite obvious. Mexico is the main source of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine for the US of A, and the Mexican cartels work closely with politicians and drug enforcement within Mexico and across the border in the USA to delay federal cannabis legalization in both countries as long as possible.
While all this was happening elsewhere, here in India - the land of Siva and his divine herb, ganja, the land that is unquestionably the greatest cannabis nation in the world - the judiciary was using technicalities and other tactics to shirk its primary responsibility of correcting the fundamental rights violations against the citizen that has been going on now for 150 years.
I was seething once again as I pondered my next steps.
I am including the Special Leave Petition Diary No 3847 of 2024 and the subsequent order by the Registrar below. The intent of posting these documents here is the same as it was with the writ petition. It is to share my experience at the Supreme Court in this matter, and to aid and encourage other citizens to take proactive action through judicial activism to correct this violation of fundamental rights that cannabis prohibition entails, especially for the poorest classes, the indigenous communities, aboriginal tribes and the outcasts (the class that I consider myself to be a part of) ...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R., Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION S.L.P. (Civil) No 3847 of 2024
BETWEEN
Petitioner: Koshy T. Abraham
Vs
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
128 A, North Block, New Delhi-110001
Ph: 011–23092653, 011-2309211
Email: rsecy@nic.in
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner most respectfully showeth:
1. The petitioner above named respectfully submits this petition seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment/order of The Supreme Court of India regarding Writ Petition (Civil) having Diary No. 23878/2023 and Case No. 001106/2023.
In the hearing on 03-October-2023 in Court No. 6 as Item No. 12 of the writ petition Diary No.23878/2023, filed by the petitioner Koshy T. Abraham, the Honorable Judges gave the petitioner a choice of dismissal of the case or the conducting of the case at cost to be borne by the petitioner.
Due to the petitioner's personal financial considerations, that were unstated by him at the time of the hearing, as well as his not being able to associate a value to the potential financial cost of conducting the case, the petitioner was unable to agree to the bearing of costs arising from the case. The Honorable Judges, therefore, dismissed the writ petition Diary No. 23878/2023 on 03-October 2023, with permission for the petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition/Appeal.
This Special Leave Petition, is subsequently being filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition (Civil) with Diary No. 23878/2023 and Case No. 001106/2023 seeking special leave to appeal against the order by The Supreme Court of India, Original Jurisdiction, on 03-October-2023, dismissing the writ petition.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of the law arise for consideration by this Hon’ble Court:
The petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 23878/2023, seeking the issuance of a mandamus writ by the Supreme Court of India to the respondent for the removal of the word 'cannabis' and all its other names – ganja, charas/hashish, bhang, THC – from the NDPS Act of 1985, as this infringes on the fundamental rights of the petitioner, as well as hundreds of millions of Indian citizens like him.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, stated that ganja was, until the 19th century, one of India's foremost natural medicines, one of India's safest and widely used intoxicants, one of India's foremost entheogens and one of India's most important agricultural crops. Ganja was, especially, the intoxicant, the medicine, the entheogen and a key source of income for India's poorest persons - including the lowest classes and castes, the indigenous communities, the religious mendicants and the bulk of Indian farmers, who were small and marginal farmers. This is detailed in the section Facts of the Case, as well as supported by various Annexures, in the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, stated that with the prohibition of ganja and charas, his following rights have been violated: his right to one of India's foremost natural medicines; his right to one of India's safest intoxicants; his right to one of India's foremost entheogens; his right to one of India's most important agricultural crops that formed a key source of income for the small farmer in the past; his right to equality; and his right against discrimination. The petitioner, in his writ petition, stated that his rights have been violated under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 38, 43, 46 and 47 of the Constitution of India. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, stated that the dangers of harmful intoxicants, like alcohol and tobacco, as well as the use of synthetic pharmaceutical medicines, were causing widespread damage to Indian society, in the absence of ganja as safe intoxicant and affordable, accessible natural medicine. This is detailed in the section Facts of the Case of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, stated that ganja, despite prohibition, is widely available through the black market, and is mainly accessed by the upper classes who have the means to afford the prohibited herb, and influence over law enforcement to escape legal action, whereas an indigent individual does not have access to the herb, cannot afford the price in the black market, and most often faces more law enforcement action compared to the upper classes. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, stated that he does not wish to consume the harmful legal State-sanctioned intoxicants – alcohol and tobacco, nor does he wish to consume the synthetic pharmaceutical medications that the State provides to the citizen as medicine. The petitioner also does not wish to follow the religious practices of the orthodoxy and religious organizations, but wishes to practice direct communion with the eternal spirit through the use of ganja as entheogen, as has been the spiritual practice for thousands of years in India by hundreds of millions of persons. The petitioner also does not wish to break the laws by procuring ganja from the black market, if he could afford it that is, nor does he wish to break the laws by cultivating ganja which is currently illegal, as per the NDPS Act of 1985. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his petition, stated that he wished to lead a simple, minimalistic life with the use of ganja as natural medicine, the use of ganja as safe natural intoxicant, the cultivation/homegrowing of ganja for personal use, and the use of ganja for spiritual purposes. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law of the writ petition.
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):
The petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and order.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
The Annexures produced alongwith the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:
Leave to appeal is sought for on the following grounds.
The petitioner, in his pursuit of a simple, minimalistic, spiritual life resigned from his job in the software industry in June 2010. He only took up one salaried job subsequently, as an IT consultant on contract, for a period of 7 months in September 2013. The desire to move away from the pursuit of money, and to live a sustainable life where he is free to pursue what he perceives to be the most important things in life, and to be his own master, were key factors in his decision to not work for money or for any organization.
The petitioner has, in the last thirteen years, with the exception of the contract job between September 2013 and April 2014, lived mainly off his savings. Some of the measures taken in this period to live the minimalistic life, free from the subjugation to money, have been: ceasing to purchase new clothes; not purchasing a smartphone but instead using the cheapest available feature phone in the market; using the same laptop purchased ten years ago; sparingly using the same car purchased 17 years ago; sparingly using the same motorcycle purchased 25 years ago; smoking beedis; drastically cutting down the consumption of alcohol; drastically cutting down eating and drinking in commercial establishments; walking and using public transport where feasible; taking up small-scale farming on the small piece of land that he inherited from his father, etc.
The petitioner, in the course of the last decade of pursuing minimalism and simple living, has become part of the poorer classes in Indian society today based on his fast-depleting savings and bank balance. The petitioner spent money in the range of Rs. 30,000 a month on an average, looking at the last two years. The main source of this money was the savings from his life as an employed person more than a decade ago.
Most of this money was spent on essentials like food, fuel, buying medicines for his aged mother, buying food and provisions, maintenance of motorcar and motorcycle, and paying various household bills such as water, telephone, house tax, etc. At the time of preparing this petition, the petitioner has a bank balance of Rs. 69,300. Please refer to Annexure SLP2: Bank Statements for the past two years for more information. The average monthly bank balance of the petitioner over the last two years has been Rs. 16,419. Please refer to Annexure SLP3: Average Monthly Bank Balance Based on Bank Statement for last two years.
By not taking up a salaried job, and not working for organizations, the petitioner has been able to focus the last six years of his life on researching and writing about the cannabis plant and its prohibition. Not working for money, and not being married and having to raise a family, has enabled the petitioner to dedicate his time, without being biased or coerced by financial or social considerations, towards this most important and fundamental issue of cannabis prohibition. One of the outputs of his efforts over the last six years is his blog – Thoughts from the void, https://ravingkoshy.blogspot.com. Another is the writ petition Diary No. 23878/2023 that was filed in the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner has taken this path, not just for the restoration of his own fundamental rights, but also for the restoration of the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable sections of Indian society, for the protection of the precious cannabis plant, and for the well-being of this nation as a whole.
The petitioner states here that, in terms of his possessions and entitlements, are the following:
- A house, on land of 22.5 cents, in Kerala that he inherited from his father. This is his ancestral home, handed down over eight generations. The current value of this house and land is something that the petitioner has not ascertained, and does not wish to do so. The petitioner sees himself as the guardian of this ancestral home, and does not wish to place this as bank guarantee or surety in the matter of this case.
- A motorcar, a Scorpio Dlx 2.6 2006 model SUV, that the petitioner purchased 17 years ago when he was employed. The petitioner is unable to ascertain the current market value of this motorcar.
- A motorcycle, a Yezdi Roadking 250cc 1994 model, that was purchased 25 years ago. The petitioner is unable to ascertain the current market value of this motorcycle.
- A bank balance of Rs. 69,300 at the time when the petitioner began preparing this petition.
- A monthly pension of Rs. 1,077 from LIC as a result of the gratuity paid by his former employer.
The petitioner, states in his writ petition, that ganja was once the medicine, intoxicant, entheogen and means of livelihood for India poorest classes, including the labouring and working classes, indigenous communities and religious mendicants, who together constituted the majority of the Indian population, and still do so. This is detailed in the section Facts of the Case in the writ petition. He has supported these facts with evidence as found in the Annexures to the writ petition.
The petitioner, states in his writ petition, that he wishes to use ganja as safe intoxicant rather than alcohol or tobacco; that he wishes to use ganja as medicine – for relief from stress, anxiety, fatigue, pain, to improve digestion, sleep, ward off infectious diseases, for treating wounds, and as a tonic as he approaches old age; that he wishes to use ganja as an entheogen for his spiritual practices of yoga, meditation, and focusing on the eternal spirit; that he wishes to grow ganja for his personal use, or to share, barter or trade with whoever he wishes just like any other agricultural commodity. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law in the writ petition.
The petitioner, states in his writ petition, that his own right to ganja as safe intoxicant, ganja as most potent natural medicine, ganja as India's foremost entheogen, and ganja as a means to raise one's standard of living through cultivation, sharing, bartering or selling have been directly affected by the prohibition of ganja. This infringes on his right to good health, right to practice religion, right to equality, right against discrimination, and right to practice an occupation that was once recognized as one of India's most significant and sustainable occupations. All these fundamental rights are covered under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 38, 43, 46 and 47 of the Constitution of India. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law in the writ petition.
The petitioner, states in his writ petition, that the legalization of ganja and charas has the potential for the State to earn additional revenue that will be sufficient to wipe out India's entire current fiscal deficit, with money to spare for critical areas that need focus such as education, health and protection of the environment. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petition, in his writ petition, states that ganja as natural medicine can help India achieve its goals of affordable universal health care, especially for India's poorest persons who form the majority of this country's population. The current scenario of expensive, harmful and inaccessible synthetic pharmaceutical drugs is not sustainable for a majority of the Indian population. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states that ganja as safe intoxicant can greatly negate the harms caused to Indian society by alcohol, tobacco and illegal synthetic drugs. Ganja, when it was legal in the past, was primarily the intoxicant of the poorest persons in Indian society. With legalization, these sections of society can once more have access to safe, affordable and medicinal ganja as intoxicant. The legalization of ganja and charas will greatly reduce the harms to Indian society caused by tobacco, alcohol, opioids and abuse of legal and illegal synthetic pharmaceutical medications, and the resulting costs to public health. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states that ganja was India's foremost entheogen or aid to spirituality. It was used by persons across multiple religions for their direct communion with the gods that they worshipped. The prohibition of ganja has greatly interfered with their religious practices, including the petitioner's. The legalization of ganja will enable vast numbers of India's citizens, across religions, to pursue their religion and spirituality, without being forced to submit to the religious institutions that serve to play broker between man and god. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his petition, states that the legalization of ganja will enable the optimization of law enforcement, excise, judiciary and prison systems to focus on violent and financial crimes that require most attention. It will shrink the black market for illegal drugs that is now becoming increasingly sophisticated and organized. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states that the legalization of ganja will enable the small farmer to cultivate and sell a crop that was once a key agricultural crop in India, thus raising his income and standard of living. This will have a significant positive impact on the Indian economy as the majority of farmers in India are small-scale farmers. The export of much sought after indigenous varieties of Indian ganja globally will easily become one of India's key export items, enabling the reduction of trade deficits with a sustainable, renewable agricultural crop. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states that the legalization of ganja will energize research in the country, and spawn numerous sustainable and ecofriendly industries, such as fibres, textiles, biodegradable plastics, biofuels, construction material, animal feed, food and beverages, wellness, retail, pulp and paper, small scale industries, etc. These industries will boost the Indian economy and counter the effects of climate change brought about by the industries that thrive in the absence of ganja - petrochemicals, fossil fuels, synthetic pharmaceuticals – legal and illegal, timber, opioids, alcohol, tobacco and cotton. The new sustainable cannabis-based industries will provide employment for vast numbers of Indian citizens. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states the legalization of ganja will enable India's indigenous communities to practice sustainable living as they did for thousands of years before ganja prohibition. It will reinstate these communities as guardians and propagators of cannabis biodiversity. It will provide India's indigenous communities with a means to raise their income, standard of living, health, and help to vastly reduce the discrimination that they face on account of their social, economic and caste status. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states that the legalization of ganja will have profoundly beneficial implications for the environment. It will help to sequester carbon, enrich depleted soils, use less water and fertilizers for agriculture, create sustainable industries that meet the goals of a circular economy, enable the cultivation of a much more sustainable crop than paddy, cotton, maize or tobacco, provide fodder for domesticated animals, and vastly benefit animal, bird and bee populations. It will be a potent weapon to combat climate change and negate the harms of the petrochemical, fossil fuel, synthetic pharmaceutical, opioid, alcohol and tobacco industries. This is detailed in the section Grounds of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, states that no other plant has been discriminated against as much as the ganja plant has been. The plant that is widely acknowledged as the beloved herb of the great god, Siva, has been destroyed on massive scales since regulation and prohibition began in the 19th century in India. Many precious varieties of ganja - with vast medicinal and industrial properties – are likely to have become extinct. Wherever a ganja plant is found growing, it has been exterminated. The biodiversity of this most valuable plant is under great threat with the continuing discrimination. This is detailed in the section Questions of Law in the writ petition.
The petitioner states here that the legalization of ganja will be among the most important, and far-reaching rulings, made in the history of the Supreme Court of India as custodian of fundamental rights. This will truly restore the rights of vast numbers of India's poorest populations, including the indigenous communities, lower classes and castes, working and labouring classes, its spiritual mendicants, its hundreds of millions suffering from lack of medicine that works, its elderly, and its persons suffering from addictions to various kinds of harmful substances. It will be a big step in ensuring equality, liberty, fraternity and justice – social, economic and political. Besides restoring the rights of Indian citizens, the ruling will be a significant step in the protection of the cannabis plant, which currently faces extermination on massive scales, as well as danger of extinction of many precious cannabis varieties endemic to India. The implications of this ruling will not only be felt across the length and breadth of this country for all time to come, it will also have great positive consequences for many nations across the world. The ruling will be a significant step in not just India's, but the also world's, attempts to combat human-induced climate change.
6. MAIN PRAYER:
The petitioner prays that considering the following:
- His inability to arrive at a financial valuation of the amount or value of the subject-matter of the case,
- The time and resources he has put in to bring the subject-matter of the writ petition this far, including: more than six years of research; three months to prepare the petition; traveling to New Delhi, at own cost, to appear for the court hearing; bearing the cost of the writ petition and this special leave petition
- The petitioner's current financial position and inability to pay the further costs of conducting the case, if it were to be anything above Rs. 5,000/-
- The vast benefits that the State and Indian society would derive from the legalization of ganja and charas
- The violation of rights, because of ganja prohibition, of hundreds of millions of Indian citizens, including the petitioner, to safe, accessible and affordable medicine, intoxicant, entheogen and sustainable living,
the decision of the Honorable Court to impose the further costs of conducting the case solely on the petitioner, with regard to Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No, 23878/2023, be reconsidered in the context of the importance of the case.
The petitioner, therefore, prays that the honorable judges of the Supreme Court exempt him from paying further costs for conducting the case, if the same exceeds Rs. 5000/-.
Date: 20-October-2023
(PETITIONER-IN-PERSON)
Registrar's Order Dated 31st January 2024 Dismissing Special Leave Petition 3847 of 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment