The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- The Supreme Court of India expressed concern over the significant markup on essential cancer medicines, which can cost consumers ten times the price sold to retailers.
- The court questioned the inactivity of government regulatory bodies regarding this pricing gap and its impact on vulnerable patients.
- Petitioners argued that manufacturers set excessively high maximum retail prices, while pharmaceutical representatives claimed retailers were the primary beneficiaries of the profits.
- The court scheduled the next hearing for September 29 to further examine the role of the government and drug manufacturers in regulating these costs.
What to watch next
- The next court hearing scheduled for September 29, 2026
- Submissions from the Centre regarding existing drug pricing mechanisms
- Potential regulatory interventions by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
Who said what2
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Vikram Nath
Supreme Court
1 quote · 1 outlet
“We wonder how a patient can be cheated for an essential cancer drug. We know of a cancer drug which the manufacturer sells at a price to retailers (PTR) of ₹2,700 which is then sold in the market for ₹27,000. This is blatant broad daylight dacoity, an absolute rampage and carnage they are doing to the patients.”
In the article
…as it raised concerns over the issue and posted the matter for September 29 to continue hearing the Centre and pharmaceutical manufacturers on the issue. A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “ We wonder how a patient can be cheated for an essential cancer drug. We know of a cancer drug which the manufacturer sells at a price to retailers (PTR) of ₹2,700 which is then sold in the market for ₹27,000. This is blatant broad daylight dacoity, an absolute rampage and carnage they are doing to the patients. ” Questioning the role of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) and the Department of Pharmaceuticals in this regard, the bench further observed, “It is surprising that the authorities supposed to take a…
Kapil Sibal
Senior Advocate
1 quote · 1 outlet
“it is the retailers who are earning profit and not the makers of the drugs.”
In the article
…that the government does not treat these proceedings “adversarially” and would welcome any suggestions from the court. Even the association of pharma manufacturers, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that it is the retailers who are earning profit and not the makers of the drugs. But the petitioners told the court that the manufacturers are part of the entire conspiracy as they should not be fixing MRP at such exorbitant rates. Kulshresthra pointed out that the Drug Pricing Control Order allows…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Department of Pharmaceuticals · National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority · Kapil Sibal · Kishan Chand Jain · K.M. Nataraj · Sandeep Mehta · Sanjay Kulshresthra · Supreme Court of India · Vikram Nath
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.