New Delhi, September 22, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the wide disparity between the price at which medicines are supplied by manufacturers to retailers and the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on the products, observing that a 10-fold difference in the case of an essential cancer medicine amounted to “broad daylight dacoity”.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observations while hearing public interest litigations concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic medicines, medical devices and prescription practices.
Justice Mehta pointed to a cancer medicine with a Price to Retailer (PTR) of Rs 2,700 and an MRP of Rs 27,000 and questioned how such a gap could be permitted.
“There are medicines, essential cancer medicines, whose MRP is 27,000 and the PTR is 2700. That’s absolute dacoity, broad daylight dacoity,” Justice Mehta observed, questioning how a patient could be charged an MRP that was 10 times the price at which the manufacturer supplied the medicine to the retailer.
The Bench also questioned the regulatory framework governing the fixing of MRPs and why manufacturers should be permitted to set prices substantially higher than their supply price to retailers.
PIL litigant Kishan Chand Jain, appearing in person, submitted that there was no effective mechanism for regulating the initial price fixation of medicines outside the controlled-price list.
Jain argued that a manufacturer launching a new medicine could initially set virtually any price, with existing restrictions applying only to subsequent increases. He cited documents showing significant differences between MRPs and PTRs, including one medicine priced at Rs 73 MRP against a PTR of Rs 22.75 and another carrying an MRP of Rs 61 against a PTR of Rs 9.65.
He also submitted that medical devices could carry substantial mark-ups and required a more effective price-fixation mechanism.
The Bench separately considered the issue of generic medicines. PIL litigant Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra said generic medicines could make treatment more affordable but argued that concerns over quality and reliability needed to be addressed.
He submitted that when a doctor prescribed a generic medicine without specifying a brand, the pharmacist would effectively choose the manufacturer, despite not having examined the patient and potentially having commercial considerations.
Kulshresthra suggested that patients should retain a choice between generic and branded medicines.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, said the government was not treating the proceedings as adversarial and would consider areas where the existing system could be improved.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, argued that manufacturers should not be held responsible for the high prices ultimately paid by patients and contended that retailers earned substantial profit margins.
The Bench, however, questioned this contention in the context of the MRP printed on medicines, pointing out that the MRP itself is fixed by the manufacturer.
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing on September 29, when it is expected to hear additional submissions from Sibal and the Union government.
FOLLOW NOW
