NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Tuesday said the pharma industry cannot be allowed to “run amok” in the name of free market to fix the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines at an exponentially high level, which in some cases happens to be over 1,000% of the price at which they are sold to retailers.Expressing anguish over the suffering of the common man who had to pay the price, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the court is “pained by the loot” and repeatedly asked Centre to explain the rationale behind allowing a high MRP and who ultimately benefits from the policy. It reserved its order on plea to bring all non-patented medicines and medical consumables under price control mechanism like scheduled drugs.Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, who had to face a volley of questions from the bench, tried to convince the court that govt was aware of the problem and that was why it recently decided to cap the price of anti-cancer drugs. But the court responded that govt “woke up” only after it intervened and passed harsh observations on the prevailing system.She, however, said the deliberation was already on and SC’s intervention expedited it. “People are living in a daydream that someday they will benefit from the drugs prices control order (DPCO)… The policy is only to give benefit to the corporate. We are thinking from the point of view of poor patients,” SC observed. Bhati, thereafter, submitted that medicine prices in India are among the lowest in the world due to free market and govt cannot take control of the entire pharma market, but the bench told her, “You are either not aware about the problem or not keen to solve the problem.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
.. Why is the entire system working for the benefit of few people?”“Ordinarily, where there is substantial competition, there is no need to regulate prices. It is not that the govt has left the market unregulated but the complete control of the market is not feasible,” Bhati said, adding that the issue pertains to economic policy and commerce and the court should desist from interfering. Not convinced by this, the bench said, “Should they (pharma companies) be allowed to run amok? What is the justification for the difference in prices? You are not able to come with an answer. We have asked you 30 times. Do not talk about control… You are talking about economic policy and commerce. Is commerce more important than the life of citizens and be given precedence?”
