Supreme Court questions why medicine price controls cannot cover more drugs
The Supreme Court has expressed dissatisfaction with the Centre’s response to demands for broader controls on medicine prices, questioning why restrictions on trade margins should be limited to anti-cancer drugs.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the government’s decision to restrict trade margins on anti-cancer medicines to 30% of their maximum retail price (MRP) did not go far enough to address patients’ concerns.
The Centre told the court that the measure was expected to save patients approximately ₹2,500 crore annually. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati presented the government’s position during the hearing.
The judges, however, highlighted substantial differences between the costs of certain medical products and the prices charged to consumers. The bench referred to a saline drip reportedly costing around ₹11 but being sold for ₹270.
The court also raised concerns about hospital markups on cardiac stents and the pricing of commonly used antibiotics. It questioned why medicines could be sold at prices many times higher than their production costs, even after accounting for research, transportation and other expenses.
The Centre argued that Indian medicines remain comparatively affordable internationally and that higher trade margins can help ensure products reach remote areas. The government also cautioned against imposing price restrictions without considering their wider effects on distribution.
The bench responded that ensuring medicines reach patients is a government responsibility and emphasised the need to examine which drugs should fall under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order.
The court has given the Centre additional time to develop proposals for regulating medicine prices. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on October 27.