Exorbitant drug pricing is extortion, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised exorbitant medicine pricing, calling it broad daylight dacoity. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said a cancer drug supplied to retailers at Rs 2,700 carried a printed MRP of Rs 27,000, and suggested all medicines be brought under price control and sold through Jan Aushadhi Kendras. A petitioner said antibiotic Tigebex 50 mg, priced at an MRP of Rs 5,635, sells for Rs 350 in the open market.

Written by AI from Times of India — Top · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 23 Sept 2026, 5:38 am IST

Source

Times of India — Top · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#drug pricing#pharma#price control#health

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta called exorbitant drug pricing 'dacoity' and 'extortion'. — Directly attributed to the named bench with verbatim quotes in the source.
An unnamed cancer drug is supplied to retailers at about Rs 2,700 and carries an MRP of Rs 27,000. — Figure appears in source and in the bench's quote; source states Rs 2,770 in narration and Rs 2,700 in the quote, an internal inconsistency.
Antibiotic Tigebex 50 mg has an MRP of Rs 5,635, sold at that price in corporate hospitals but at Rs 350 in the open market. — Attributed to petitioner Sanjay Kulshresthra; not independently verified in source.
The Centre, through ASG K M Nataraj, said it was not adversarial and would endeavour to make medicines available to all. — Attributed to the named law officer in court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for pharma companies, said they were not making money from it and sought time to submit data. — Attributed statement made in court; underlying claim unverified.

Written by AI from Times of India — Top · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The Supreme Court's language — "broad daylight dacoity" — carries more political force than legal weight at this stage. By asking why the authorities meant to decide on price control are "absolutely silent" and adding that it need not spell out the reason, the bench has pushed questions about the regulator-industry relationship into open public debate. The Centre's non-adversarial posture in court, plus the bench's reference to Jan Aushadhi Kendras, gives the government room to absorb the pressure as its own reform story rather than a rebuke.

Medicine pricing touches every household, making price control a low-risk, high-reward political platform for any party that owns it.
The court's remark on official silence hands the opposition a ready-made line of attack on regulatory failure.
The ASG's assurance that the government is not adversarial reads as a cooperative rather than defensive strategy — letting judicial pressure be reframed as policy intent.
Invoking Jan Aushadhi Kendras routes the solution through an existing government scheme, which is politically convenient framing.
Pharma companies' claim that they are not the ones profiting signals a lobbying fight over whether retailers and corporate hospitals carry the blame.

What to watch — Watch whether the Centre's next filing proposes widening the price-control net, and where the industry's promised data places responsibility.

Oral observations are not a ruling: the story establishes no proven wrongdoing by any named company and no commitment by the government to change policy.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 3 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Supreme Court is hearing public interest litigations on the pricing of medicines in India, filed by advocate K C Jain and Agra-based doctor Sanjay Kulshresthra, seeking judicial intervention on price fixation. The petitioners produced bills showing that pharma companies print maximum retail prices (MRP) far above the price at which they supply drugs to retailers (price to retailer, or PTR), allowing sales at 10-16 times actual cost. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Tuesday described such pricing as "broad daylight dacoity" and extortion, and questioned the silence of the authorities who are supposed to decide on the issue. The court suggested bringing all medicines under price control and making them available through government-sponsored Jan Aushadhi Kendras.

Key facts

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said an essential cancer medicine had an MRP of Rs 27,000 while its price to retailer (PTR) was Rs 2,700 - ten times lower.
The source also states the pharma company supplied the cancer drug to retailers at Rs 2,770 while it was sold to patients at an MRP of Rs 27,000.
Petitioner Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra said the antibiotic Tigebex 50 mg had an MRP of Rs 5,635, charged in corporate hospitals, while it sold in the open market for Rs 350 - about 16 times less.
Petitioners' bills showed retailers were able to sell medicines at 10-16 times their actual cost due to inflated printed MRPs.
The bench called the pricing gap "absolute rampage, carnage, broad daylight dacoity" and "a clear cut case of fraud on the face of it".
The court suggested all medicines be brought under the price control mechanism and made available under government-sponsored Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj said the Centre was not taking an adversarial approach and would endeavour to make medicines available to all.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for pharma companies, said they were not the ones making money out of it and was allowed time to place data before the court.

Timeline

Not dated in the sourcePILs filed in the Supreme Court by advocate K C Jain and Agra-based doctor Sanjay Kulshresthra seeking intervention on price fixation of medicines.
Tuesday (hearing date as reported)Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta terms exorbitant drug pricing "dacoity", questions government silence, and suggests universal price control and sale via Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
Same hearingPharma companies, through senior advocate Kapil Sibal, seek and are granted time to place pricing data before the court.

Who has a stake

Patients and their families — Forced to sell houses and ornaments to buy medicines priced far above the price at which manufacturers supply them to retailers.
Supreme Court bench (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) — Examining whether all medicines should be brought under price fixation and why regulators have remained silent.
Union government / Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj — Says it is not adversarial and will endeavour to make medicines available; court counters that the issue is reasonable price, not availability.
Pharmaceutical companies (represented by Kapil Sibal) — Deny profiting from the MRP-PTR gap; must now submit data to the court.
Retailers and corporate hospitals — Accused of selling at inflated printed MRP - 10 to 16 times actual market cost in cited examples.
Jan Aushadhi Kendras — Proposed by the court as the channel for making all medicines available at controlled prices.

Why it matters

Out-of-pocket spending on medicines is a major cause of household distress, and the court's examples suggest printed MRPs can be ten to sixteen times the actual supply or market price. If the Supreme Court pushes for all medicines - not just a selected list - under price control, it would reshape how drugs are priced and sold in India. The case also raises the question of regulatory inaction, which the bench pointedly refused to explain away.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Bench hearing the drug pricing PILs: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court.
Petitioners: Supreme Court advocate K C Jain and Agra-based doctor Sanjay Kulshresthra.
PTR (price to retailer) of the cited cancer drug: Rs 2,700; printed MRP: Rs 27,000 - a ten-fold gap.
Tigebex 50 mg: MRP Rs 5,635 in corporate hospitals versus Rs 350 in the open market (16 times).
Court's suggestion: bring all medicines under price fixation policy and supply via Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
Centre represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj; pharma companies by senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

Mains framing

The Supreme Court's observations expose a structural gap in India's drug pricing regime: a printed MRP that bears little relation to the price at which manufacturers supply retailers, producing margins of ten to sixteen times in the examples cited, including an essential cancer medicine (PTR Rs 2,700, MRP Rs 27,000) and the antibiotic Tigebex 50 mg (MRP Rs 5,635 against Rs 350 in the open market). The causes the court points to are two-fold - the practice of printing inflated MRPs that allows retailers and corporate hospitals to overcharge, and the silence of the authorities empowered to act, which the bench said it did not need to explain. The implications are direct and severe: patients selling houses and ornaments to buy medicines, which is a catastrophic health expenditure problem as much as a regulatory one. The court's own suggested way forward is to extend price fixation to all medicines rather than a subset - asking "if all medicines are important, then why keep some medicines out of it?" - and to channel supply through government-sponsored Jan Aushadhi Kendras. The government's position, that it is not adversarial and will ensure availability, was met with the bench's clarification that the problem is affordability, not access; pharma companies, meanwhile, deny profiting and have been given time to place data on record, which will be the test of where the margin actually accrues.

Key terms

MRP (Maximum Retail Price): The price printed on a medicine pack above which it cannot be sold; the court found it inflated far above actual supply cost.
PTR (Price to Retailer): The price at which a manufacturer supplies a medicine to the retailer - Rs 2,700 for the cancer drug cited, against an MRP of Rs 27,000.
Price fixation / price control mechanism: Regulatory capping of medicine prices; the court asked why some medicines are kept outside it and suggested covering all.
Jan Aushadhi Kendras: Government-sponsored outlets that the bench suggested should stock all medicines at controlled prices.
PIL (Public Interest Litigation): The route used by advocate K C Jain and Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra to seek the court's intervention on medicine price fixation.
Additional Solicitor General: Law officer representing the Centre; here K M Nataraj, who said the government would endeavour to make medicines available to all.

Practice questions

The Supreme Court has described the gap between a medicine's price to retailer and its printed MRP as "broad daylight dacoity". Examine the regulatory failures this reveals and evaluate the court's suggestion that all medicines be brought under price control.
"The problem is not availability of medicines but their affordability." Discuss with reference to the pricing disparities placed before the Supreme Court and the role of Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
Should judicial intervention drive drug price regulation, or is this the domain of the executive and specialised regulators? Argue with reference to the ongoing PILs on medicine pricing.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyED appeal an abuse of legal process, Gandhis tell High Court →

← All stories