CUTTACK: A 63-year-old opium-dependent man from Khurda has become the focus of an unusual legal battle after he approached the Orissa High Court seeking an increase in his monthly medicinal opium quota.
Ram Chandra Senapati, who says he has consumed opium for the last 46 years, first received a Medical Opium Card in 2002, allowing him a monthly quota of 10 grams based on the recommendation of the chief district medical officer (CDMO), Khurda. Over the years, various authorities enhanced his quota to 15 gm, then 22 gm and eventually to 40 gm per month as his dependence deepened.
Senapati 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 was formed, and on June 5 examined Senapati and concluded that his current quota was not sufficient for his health condition. The board 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. However, with no decision forthcoming, Senapati moved the high court on September 15, arguing that the delay was worsening his condition.
Acting on the petition, the two-judge bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman on December 4, 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.
During the hearing, additional government advocate Debashis Tripathy did not dispute the factual submissions but maintained that the matter must be considered strictly under Rule 20 of the Odisha Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1989. The 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 two-judge bench underscored this very point.
It reminded authorities that Rule 20(3) requires them to explore the possibility of curative treatment and facilitate rehabilitation for addicts like Senapati.