India's Cannabis Laws: Bhang, Charas and the NDPS Act
Photo by Kamakshi via Pexels.
Walk into a government-licensed bhang shop near the ghats in Varanasi and you can order a bhang lassi as casually as a mango one. The shop has a license. The transaction is taxed. Nobody is hiding anything. Cross a few neighborhoods, though, and get caught with a few grams of charas in your pocket, and you're looking at a sentence that could stretch past a decade. Same plant, wildly different outcomes, and the gap between them isn't really about tolerance or morality. It's about botany and bad drafting.
India's cannabis law has a reputation, especially among tourists and casual observers, as being quietly liberal -- a wink-and-nod exception carved out for tradition. That's not quite right. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 doesn't tolerate cannabis so much as define it narrowly, and the definition happens to leave a hole big enough to drive a bhang industry through. Leaves and seeds sit outside the legal meaning of cannabis entirely. Resin and flowering tops don't. That's the whole trick, and it's held up for forty years largely because nobody in 1985 thought to close it.
That accidental framework is now under real pressure. A case moving through the Delhi High Court and, more recently, the Supreme Court has forced the question lawmakers avoided: does a 1985 statute written under UN treaty pressure still make sense for a country with hemp startups, state-run cultivation pilots, and a bhang trade that varies wildly depending on which state line you're standing on. The answer, as of now, is unresolved -- and that unresolved status is itself the story.
What the NDPS Act Actually Bans
Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act is the clause doing all the work here, and it's worth reading closely because the ambiguity people talk about isn't really ambiguity at all -- it's precision aimed in a narrow direction. The Act defines cannabis, which it calls hemp, as charas -- the separated resin, whether crude or purified, including hashish oil and liquid resin preparations -- and ganja, defined specifically as the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Read that last part again: seeds and leaves are explicitly carved out. They are not a controlled substance under the central statute. That is the entire legal foundation bhang stands on, because bhang is traditionally made from ground leaves, not flower.
It's easy to mistake this for a deliberate policy choice -- some kind of cultural compromise where lawmakers decided to protect a centuries-old leaf-based drink while cracking down on resin and bud. That's not really what happened. The 1985 Act was pushed through largely in response to the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which obligated India to dismantle a long-standing system of licensed ganja and charas shops that had operated under British and then independent Indian administration for generations. The drafting focused on resin and flowering material because that's what international pressure targeted. Leaves simply weren't part of the conversation, so they were never swept into the prohibition.
It's also worth noting the Act doesn't stop at possession definitions. Section 8(b) separately and bluntly prohibits cultivation of the cannabis plant itself, with no exception for personal use or small scale. This matters because cultivation is judged by the act of growing, not by what the plant eventually becomes. A handful of cannabis plants on a balcony, destined for nothing more than home leaf tea, can still expose someone to prosecution, because the law doesn't ask what you intended to harvest -- it asks whether you grew the plant at all.
Bhang's Legal Status Depends on Which State You're In
Photo by Roman Saienko via Pexels.
Because the NDPS Act leaves bhang regulation to the states, there's no single national answer to whether bhang is legal in India -- there are twenty-eight different answers, more or less. States issue their own excise licenses, set their own restrictions, and in some cases pass their own prohibition laws that sit entirely outside the central framework.
Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan are the states most associated with open bhang commerce. Both run licensed shops, and in UP some outlets are effectively government bhang stores, selling through the state excise department rather than private vendors operating in a gray zone. Business peaks hard around Holi and Maha Shivratri, when bhang thandai and bhang pakoras are treated less like contraband and more like seasonal specialty goods, openly advertised and consumed in public.
Assam takes the opposite approach entirely, banning bhang outright under state law despite the central exemption that technically applies there too. The NDPS Act not covering bhang doesn't obligate a state to permit it -- it just means the central government isn't the one prohibiting it.
Tamil Nadu is probably the sharpest example of how state law can override the federal carve-out. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 -- a law that predates the NDPS Act by nearly five decades -- specifically names bhang as an intoxicating drug, which means possession is an offence there regardless of what the central cannabis definition says. The NDPS exemption for leaves simply doesn't help you in Tamil Nadu, because you're not being charged under the NDPS Act.
A June 2026 Jharkhand High Court ruling, Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, reinforced this layered structure rather than simplifying it. The court held that bhang doesn't meet the NDPS Act's statutory definition of cannabis, which was legally significant, but the judgment was careful to note that finding doesn't override whatever a given state has separately decided to prohibit. In practice, that means the question is Jharkhand isn't bhang legal here is a different question from is bhang legal in India, and travelers conflating the two are the ones who end up in trouble.
Penalties: How Quantity Determines Your Sentence
Under India's NDPS Act, maximum prison terms for cannabis offenses rise sharply with quantity—from just 6 months for small amounts to 10 years for intermediate and 20 years for commercial quantities.
Indian cannabis sentencing runs on a quantity-based tier system, and the gap between the lowest and highest tiers is enormous -- which is exactly why so much of the actual courtroom fighting in cannabis cases happens over how a seized substance gets weighed and classified, not whether it was found.
At the bottom, possession of a small quantity carries a maximum of six months imprisonment or a fine up to Rs 10,000, sometimes both. Move into intermediate quantity -- the middle tier between small and commercial -- and the exposure jumps sharply to rigorous imprisonment of up to 10 years plus a fine reaching Rs 1 lakh. Commercial quantity is where the law gets genuinely severe: 20 kilograms or more of ganja, or 1 kilogram or more of charas, triggers rigorous imprisonment of 10 to 20 years alongside fines between Rs 1 lakh and Rs 2 lakh, with life imprisonment on the table for repeat offenders under the Act's enhanced-penalty provisions.
Cultivation sits in its own category under Section 8(b), and it doesn't scale the same way possession does. Growing cannabis plants -- even a modest personal patch with no commercial intent whatsoever -- can draw up to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 1 lakh fine. The law treats the act of cultivation itself as the offence, independent of yield or purpose.
Where things have gotten more interesting lately is in how courts determine what actually counts as ganja for sentencing purposes, since the statutory definition is restricted to flowering or fruiting tops. The Delhi High Court has pushed back against prosecutions that lump dried leaves and small branches in with flowering material when calculating quantity, holding that such mixed material doesn't automatically meet the Act's narrow definition. Practically, that means seized material increasingly has to be sorted -- flowering tops separated from leaf and stem -- before charges and sentencing tiers can even be calculated, which has become its own forensic and procedural headache for prosecutors working these cases.
The Delhi High Court Case Reshaping the Debate
The case reshaping this entire conversation started with the Great Legalisation Movement India Trust, an organization founded in 2014 that has spent years pushing for cannabis decriminalization on medicinal, industrial, and ecological grounds rather than a broader recreational argument. Its petition landed in front of a Delhi High Court bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, which heard arguments on January 23, 2026.
The ruling that followed, delivered February 4, 2026, didn't give the petitioners what they were ultimately after. The court declined to decriminalize ganja outright, and it was explicit about why: deciding whether the NDPS Act's cannabis provisions need to be diluted or rewritten is a legislative and executive question, not something a court should resolve by judicial order. What the bench did do was direct the central government to actually examine the issue, ordering stakeholder consultations and setting an expectation that a policy decision would emerge by July 2026.
That hasn't closed the matter -- it's pushed it up the chain. The dispute has now also reached the Supreme Court under SLP Civil No. 7546/2026, and as of this writing no finalized central policy has been confirmed. This is genuinely a live legal situation, not a settled one, and anyone relying on this reporting for a real decision should check current status directly rather than assume the July 2026 timeline held.
Meanwhile, courts have kept chipping away at potential loopholes rather than waiting for the Centre to act. The Allahabad High Court ruled in August 2026 that cannabis grown hydroponically still legally qualifies as ganja under the NDPS definition when flowering tops are present, regardless of cultivation method. That closed off an argument some had floated -- that indoor, soil-free cultivation might sit outside a statute written with field-grown plants in mind. The courts, it turns out, are far more willing to do definitional cleanup work than parliament has been in four decades.
Hemp, Wellness Startups, and State Cultivation Pilots
Photo by Rajesh Ram via Unsplash.
While the legal fight plays out in Delhi and the Supreme Court, a quieter industry has been building itself directly on top of the leaf-resin distinction, treating it less as an ambiguity to worry about and more as a workable legal foundation. Companies like BOHECO (Bombay Hemp Company) and Qurist extract cannabinoids from cannabis leaves specifically, rather than flowers or resin, which keeps their raw material outside the NDPS Act's cannabis definition entirely. Both manufacture wellness and therapeutic products under licenses from the Ministry of AYUSH, positioning cannabis-derived goods within India's traditional and alternative medicine regulatory system rather than its narcotics one.
State governments have started treating cultivation the same way -- as an agricultural and economic opportunity rather than purely a law-enforcement category. Himachal Pradesh launched a cannabis cultivation pilot program in 2025 aimed specifically at industrial and medicinal hemp, giving the state a controlled framework to test cultivation, processing, and export potential without running afoul of federal cultivation restrictions on the psychoactive plant.
Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh have moved in similar directions, each developing regulated cultivation frameworks that frame hemp as a cash crop for farmers rather than a narcotics liability. The appeal is straightforward: hemp fiber, seed oil, and low-THC cannabinoid extracts have real commercial markets, and states with agricultural economies looking for new revenue streams have incentive to build licensing structures that let farmers grow it legally and traceably.
What all of this adds up to is an industry that isn't waiting around for the Centre's review to conclude. BOHECO, Qurist, and the state pilot programs are effectively building business models on the same forty-year-old leaf/flower distinction that's currently under judicial scrutiny, betting that whatever reform eventually emerges will refine that line rather than erase it. It's a reasonable bet, but it's still a bet -- nothing here is settled law yet, and companies operating in this space know the ground could shift under the July 2026 policy review or whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides.
Forty years is a long time for a legal distinction to survive mostly by accident. The leaf-versus-resin split in the NDPS Act wasn't engineered as clever policy -- it was a byproduct of treaty obligations and drafting that never anticipated hemp startups, hydroponic grow rooms, or a judiciary that would eventually be asked to define, plant part by plant part, what actually counts as ganja. Courts are now doing the definitional work that parliament left unfinished in 1985, ruling on dried leaves, isolated flowering tops, and hydroponic cultivation methods one case at a time because nobody has rewritten the statute itself.
Whatever the Centre lands on by its stated July 2026 timeline -- assuming that timeline holds, which is not guaranteed given how far this has already slipped into Supreme Court territory -- it's unlikely to produce one clean national rule. The state patchwork on bhang isn't a temporary gap waiting for federal clarity; it's baked into how the Act was structured from the start, leaving room for Uttar Pradesh to run government bhang shops while Tamil Nadu criminalizes the same leaf preparation under a law from 1937. Even a major rewrite of the NDPS cannabis provisions wouldn't automatically touch state prohibition acts sitting outside that federal framework.
The practical takeaway for anyone moving around India is that cannabis law here needs to be treated as hyperlocal, not national. A bhang lassi that's a licensed, taxed beverage in Varanasi can be a chargeable offence a few states over, and the legal status of what's in your hand depends less on the plant itself than on which state border you last crossed. Given how actively this area is still shifting in the courts, it's worth checking current rules for the specific state in question rather than assuming yesterday's reporting -- including this article -- still describes where things stand today.
