A judicial solution to the impasse over the implementation of Pharma Policy 2002 continues to be elusive even after three years as none of the affected parties are inclined to approach the Supreme Court for an early date for regular hearing on the case.
While the industry is not interested in an early hearing due to the fear of a negative verdict, bringing more drugs under price control, what is surprising is the silence of the health activists who were seeking a stricter control over drug prices. The Chemicals & Fertilizers Ministry is equally ill-equipped to face an early hearing as they have no idea on who exactly is going to argue the case on behalf of the government. It is known that the ministry was yet to hear from the Law Ministry on the person who is in charge of the particular case.
With the case listed for regular hearing, it may take years together for the case to come up through normal track as SC takes up pending cases on the basis of the date of admission.
The last hearing on the case took place on November 21, 2003 when the SC admitted the matter as a Civil Appeal. The SC had asked the parties involved to exchange the affidavits and also granted the liberty to mention the matter for final hearing in the second week of January 2004. Though 16 months have passed, none of the parties have approached the court for a date.
Though it was the government that appealed against the Karnataka HC verdict against the new policy, the lack of interest among other groups, including the industry, and the stand of the United Progressive Alliance Government towards price control system on life saving medicines may have contributed towards the government's silence. The chemicals and fertilizers minister had been vocal on the National Common Minimum Programme of the UPA and the need for controlling the prices of more drugs, which indirectly diluted the government position in the SC.
It may be recalled that the Karnataka HC, while granting a stay on the policy had adjudged that the policy was "arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of relevant provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution only to the extent of the price control mechanism adopted in the policy to determine drugs under price control."
The petitioners had contended that the Pharmaceutical Policy 2002 had been framed like a business policy and if it were allowed to enforce it would take away the essential and life saving drugs out of the ambit of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) which was highly detrimental to public interest on a detailed consideration of rival contention.