Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Delhi High Court Addresses Urgent Need for Regulation of Drug and Alcohol De-addiction Centers in a PIL

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


“It is crucial that the Government continue its efforts and remain steadfast in the endeavor to combat substance abuse.” Delhi High Court.

In a significant development, the High Court of Delhi has addressed the pressing issue of unregulated drug and alcohol de-addiction centers in India. The court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought crucial reliefs to tackle the rampant problem of substance abuse and addiction. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula, recognized the importance of regulation and monitoring of these centers to protect public health and combat the erosion of the social fabric.

Highlighting the urgency of the matter, the court stated in its judgment, Government of India tackles this problem through ‘supply reduction’ and ‘demand reduction’... It is crucial that the Government continue its efforts and remain steadfast in the endeavor to combat substance abuse.” The court also acknowledged the petitioner’s significant contribution in bringing the issue to light and appreciated their unwavering efforts.

The PIL raised concerns about the lack of regulation and oversight of private rehabilitation centers, while acknowledging the existing frameworks for government-run centers. The court noted the report of the amicus curiae, who emphasized the need for evidence-based medical practices and consensual treatment for addiction, along with the regulation of private rehabilitation centers.

The court further highlighted the initiatives undertaken by the Government of India, including the comprehensive survey on substance use, the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR), and the Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan (NMBA) aimed at counseling, treatment, capacity building, and awareness programs. These efforts reflect the government’s commitment to combating substance abuse and addiction.

Recognizing the progress made by the government, the court expressed satisfaction with the steps taken to address the issues raised in the PIL. However, it emphasized the need for sustained attention and a multifaceted approach, stating, “By doing so, the Government can contribute to the overall betterment of society and protect public health.”

With many of the reliefs sought in the petition already addressed by the government’s actions, the court disposed of the PIL. While the petitioner had unfortunately passed away before the final hearing, the court acknowledged their significant contribution in bringing attention to the critical issue of substance abuse and rehabilitation.

This judgment serves as a clarion call for the government to continue its efforts and ensure the effective regulation and management of drug and alcohol de-addiction centers across the country. By doing so, it aims to create a healthier and more informed society, free from the clutches of substance abuse.

Date of Decision: 20th July, 2023

RAJIV BOOLCHAND JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Rajiv-BOOLCHAND-Vs-State-20-July-23.pdf"]

Latest Legal News