Cuttack: The Odisha High Court had to hear a unisual matter recently after an addict sought directions on the state excise department to increase his monthly quota of opium.
The 63-year-old man from Khurda told the court that he has been consuming opium for the last 46 years and first received a Medical Opium Card in 2002. This card allowed him a monthly quota of 10 grams based on the recommendation of the chief district medical officer (CDMO), Khurda.
His quota was enhanced over the years as his dependency grew. Various authorities enhanced his quota to 15 gm, then 22 gm and eventually to 40 gm per month.
He recently sought a further increase, claiming his health was deteriorating and the existing allowance was insufficient to prevent withdrawal symptoms. Following his representations earlier this year, the Khurda collector asked the CDMO to conduct a medical review.
A district medical board examined him on June 5 and concluded that his current quota was not sufficient for his health condition.
It recommended increasing his monthly quota from 40 to 60 gm. The collector, acting on this medical opinion, forwarded the recommendation to the excise commissioner, requesting issuance of a revised permit.
With no decision forthcoming, the man moved the High Court, arguing that the delay was worsening his condition.
The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S Raman heard the matter and directed the excise commissioner to take a conscious decision on Senapati’s plea within two weeks, highlighting both administrative delay and the broader concerns surrounding chronic addiction.
While additional government advocate Debashis Tripathy did not dispute the factual submissions, he maintained that the matter must be considered strictly under Rule 20 of the Odisha Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1989.
This rule provides for regulated supply of medicinal opium to registered addicts but also urges authorities to encourage treatment aimed at ending dependence.
While directing the commissioner to decide the matter, the Court underscored this very point. The judges reminded authorities that Rule 20(3) requires them to explore the possibility of curative treatment and facilitate rehabilitation for addicts.
