India’s cannabis policy reflects a reality that no longer exists. Millions of Indians consume cannabis, several states already regulate aspects of its cultivation and traditional use, and industrial hemp is emerging as a legitimate economic opportunity. Yet the legal framework has remained unchanged for more than four decades, despite developments in medical research and shifts in global policy and consumption patterns. The Delhi High Court’s decision to review key provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act NDPS may finally force policymakers to face the facts and abandon prohibition that does not work. The court has not called for blanket legalisation.
Instead, has directed the Union government to engage with medical experts, researchers, civil society, and other stakeholders before deciding whether India’s cannabis laws should be updated to better reflect new developments. That alone marks an important shift. The debate is moving beyond ideology and towards evidence, outcomes, and practical governance. The timing is signif icant . Government submissions before the court estimate that around 31 million Indians consumed cannabis products in the previous year. Yet authorities continue to report large-scale seizures across the country, highlighting the pitfalls of a complete ban.
Demand has persisted despite decades of prohibition, while markets remain unregulated. That raises an obvious question. If millions continue to consume cannabis and enforcement efforts remain constant, what exactly is the current framework achieving? Prohibition does not eliminate demand. It changes where that demand is met. Consumers resort to informal markets where there is no product testing, no quality control and little transparency about potency or contamination. Age restrictions become harder to enforce, and regulators lose visibility into how products are produced and distributed. Risks do not vanish when markets are pushed into the shadows.
They become harder to monitor and harder to address. Countries that have embraced regulated cannabis systems have shown that public health and consumer protection need not be competing objectives. In much of the United States, for instance, licensed retailers in several states have collectively generated $24 billion in tax revenue for healthcare, infrastructure, education, and community programmes. At the same time, government surveys in many legal states have reported a drop in the rate of use of cannabis by youth, suggesting that regulated markets with age verification can sometimes restrict underage access more effectively than illicit markets where no one checks identification. India already recognises some of these distinctions.
The NDPS Act does not impose a complete ban on all cannabis-related activities. Medical and scientific uses are permitted under regulated conditions, industrial hemp cultivation is allowed under specific provisions, and bhang remains outside the scope of the law in several states. Uttarakhand has already developed a framework for industrial hemp cultivation, while Madhya Pradesh is exploring medicinal and industrial applications. Recreational cannabis is only one part of the discussion. Industrial hemp is emerging as an important crop for sectors such as cosmetics, textiles, food processing and sustainable manufacturing.
Countries including Canada and France have developed commercial hemp industries supplying everything from fibre and construction materials to food products. With clear rules and regulatory certainty, India could unlock new opportunities for farmers, entrepreneurs, and researchers while fostering innovation and economic growth. None of this means cannabis should be treated as a harmless product. Problematic use by youth is a real issue that requires effective safeguards. Regulation gives governments the ability to enforce those safeguards while reeling consumers back into legal markets where accountability and oversight are possible.
The broader debate is no longer about whether cannabis exists in India. It plainly does. The challenge is determining how it should be governed in a way that protects consumers, reduces harm, and reflects existing realities. The Delhi High Court has provided an opportunity to revisit a framework that has remained largely unchanged for decades. The question now is not whether reform should happen, but whether policymakers are prepared to design rules that work better than the status quo. The writer is Indian Policy Associate, Consumer Choice Center.