Punjab and Haryana High Court condemns UT Administration for the turmoil caused by cannabis and criticizes their haphazard, inadequate attempts

The UT Administration and municipal corporation officials have come under harsh criticism from the Punjab and Haryana High Court for their utterly insufficient reaction to the unchecked proliferation of wild cannabis plants around the city. The court described their attempts as “unsatisfactory” and “casual,” expressing its profound unhappiness with their inability to abide by its earlier directives on the matter.

It was also said by the high court bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil and Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma that the deployment of a special team was necessary to guarantee total eradication. On a previous hearing date, the Bench was made aware of the widespread wild cannabis presence in many sectors of Chandigarh, including the vicinity of the judges’ homes and public locations like Rajendra Park and the Secretariat roundabout. The court said that this unrestrained expansion constituted a serious concern, particularly to the young, who were becoming more and more vulnerable to drug usage.

The Executive Engineers of the Municipal Corporation and UT Chandigarh’s Horticulture Divisions presented progress reports in response to the court’s previous orders as the case was set for resumed hearing. The papers claimed to document the efforts made to eradicate wild cannabis.

However, the bench condemned the authorities for their clumsy approach after finding that the measures were dreadfully insufficient. The judges said that despite eradication attempts, there were noticeable remains of the cannabis plants that were dispersed and left untreated, citing photos that were appended to the affidavits.

The Bench noted in its comprehensive ruling that the municipal corporation’s position in this case was that such wild vegetation was periodically cleaned at regular intervals, or as and when needed. This court is taken aback by the answer, which consists of a hastily submitted affidavit. A dedicated team of workers, including laborers, must be assembled to handle this matter seriously and make sure that cannabis plants never grow in such a wild manner again. However, the Bench noted that it doesn’t seem to be the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh’s purpose.

The Bench said that the action done so far was completely inadequate, pointing to the other affidavit that was submitted on behalf of the UT Administration. However, since the case was only getting started, the Bench decided against making a “harsh order.”

The Bench made it plain that “more stern steps,” including eradicating the untamed growth, were necessary before resolving the issue. A plan of action to control its expansion during the wet season was also demanded by the judges.

Punjab and Haryana were also hit hard by the Bench’s declaration that the “clandestine stand” adopted by the attorneys for the two States was inappropriate and deplorable. The judges went on to explain that while the States had not submitted an affidavit, they had verbally reported that their Chief Secretaries had met with the department heads and that instructions had been given to take the appropriate steps.