सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मांगी दवाओं के MRP पर 16% की सीमा

Why Not Cap Medicines' MRPs At 16% Above Retailer Prices? Supreme Court Asks

Amisha Shrivastava

29 Sept 2026 1:11 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre over the massive markups on cancer drugs and other medicines, asking why there should not be a uniform rule limiting the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to no more than 16% above the price to the retailer (PTR).

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing petitions concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic prescriptions, and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013.

Justice Mehta highlighted the stark disparity, noting that a cancer drug with an MRP of around ₹27,000 had a price to the retailer of only about ₹3,000. “Just see the drastic difference,” he observed, reiterating concerns raised in earlier hearings about markups reaching ten times or more.

The bench further questioned the distinction between essential and non-essential medicines under the DPCO. It pointed out that corporate hospitals often insist patients purchase from in-house pharmacies, with the inflated costs ultimately borne by taxpayers when treatment falls under government schemes such as Ayushman Bharat or other public health programmes.

“Why not a uniform criteria of 16% and nothing beyond that? Every medical device, every medicine is covered under the Essential Commodities Act. If it is an essential item, can it be left out of the DPCO?” the bench asked.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, acknowledged the issue, stating that a balanced solution would have to be found. “I am not saying the petitioners are wrong, but some way which balances equities will have to be found. As I understand, pharma companies are not the ones benefiting from it,” he submitted.

The petitions, including those by advocate Kishan Chand Jain and others, highlight that while scheduled medicines (a relatively small portion of the market) face ceiling prices, the bulk of non-scheduled formulations, estimated at around 80% or more by number and value, allow manufacturers greater freedom in setting initial MRPs, subject mainly to annual increase limits of 10%. This, petitioners argue, enables steep markups that burden patients, many of whom sell assets or jewellery to afford treatment, and drains public funds through reimbursements.

The Court has kept the matter for further hearing on October 12.

The same bench had made strong remarks last week, describing such pricing gaps as “broad daylight dacoity,” “extortion,” and “absolute rampage and carnage” against patients, while criticising regulatory silence.

Cases: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023 Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB) (Erstwhile Medical Council Of India) and W.P.(C) No. 717/2026 Diary No. 25121/2026 Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India

Powered by Nyaya 247 News