Facts in Brief

The Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging that the drugs industry in India was dominated by multi-national corporations originally based in the U.S.A., U.K., the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Japan, France and the like. According to the Petitioner, these corporations had large resources and made huge profits. The control exercised by the Government in this country over such corporations was minimal and inadequate, and the disease-prone sub-continent of India was being used as a pasture ground by these corporations.

The Hathi Committee, appointed by the Central Government, in its Report submitted in 1974, highlighted the havoc played by these corporations in India, and pleaded for nationalising the drug industry in the best interest of the Indian people. The recommendation was not accepted by the Government.

According to the Petitioner, several drugs banned in the advanced West after appropriate analytical research were routed to India, and — on account of lack of control and sluggish enforcement of the law — conveniently found their way into the market.

It was submitted that what was poison to the human body in the West was equally poison to the people in India; but not knowing the repercussions thereof on the human system, such drugs were freely circulated and were even prescribed for patients. The Petitioner therefore sought directions from the Supreme Court, in the public interest, towards banning the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of such drugs as had been recommended for banning by the Drugs Consultative Committee, and the cancellation of all licences authorising the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of such drugs.

Judgment

Having regard to the magnitude, complexity and technical nature of the enquiry involved in the matter, and keeping in view the far-reaching implications of the total ban on certain medicines for which the Petitioner had prayed, the Supreme Court observed that a judicial proceeding of the nature sought was not an appropriate one for the determination of such matters.

Nevertheless, stating the importance of sound health, Ranganath Misra, J., observed:

“A healthy body is the very foundation for all human activities. In a welfare state, therefore, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. Attending to public health therefore is of high priority — perhaps the one at the top.”

The Court opined that the branch of health care of citizens involved an ever-changing challenge. The problem was a shifting one, and could not have a fixed process to deal with the situations that would arise from time to time. Therefore, the Court allowed the Central Government to adopt an approved national policy, and prescribed an adequate number of formulations which would, on the whole, meet the requirement of the people at large, on the basis of expert advice. However, the Court warned that it was necessary to keep abreast of changing situations and to make proper and timely amendments. The Court, while laying down the guidelines on this aspect, held that injurious drugs were to be totally eliminated from the market.

For the Common Man

The case highlights the importance of healthy living, and institutionalises the right to health within the constitutional precincts. Considering the gravity of the situation, the Court urged the Government to take timely action against drugs proved to be unfit for human consumption. However, the reluctance of the Court to give directions regarding the nationalisation of the industry shows the cautious approach of the Court in treading into the role of the executive — a laudable trend, for which the judiciary has been severely criticised of late.