Despite the UP High Court quashing the UP government's controversial order in which it had directed the state police to initiate criminal proceedings against the drug and food companies for marketing substandard drugs, the state government continues to file first information reports (FIRs) against the drug companies under different sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is learnt.

Earlier on May 11, 2010, in a controversial government order (GO) the UP chief minister had directed the commissioners, district magistrates, DIG of Police, SSP and SP of each district and Food and Drugs Authorities to lodge FIR with the police under section 274, 275 and 276 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the drug and food companies which are found to be marketing substandard drugs.

Using this controversial GO in August this year, the UP police registered FIR against PepsiCo employees in different districts of Uttar Pradesh and several of them were arrested for marketing substandard food items. After that, the PepsiCo moved the court. Delivering its verdict in September this year, the Allahabad bench of the UP High Court quashing the impugned Government Order said, “In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned GO dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State Government contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed”.

Curiously, the UP government has interpreted the HC order differently. “Our government is of the view that the high court order was pertaining to the Food Safety and Standards Act and it has nothing to do with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act”, said UP drug controller AL Arya. He also said that the UP government order still stands for the drug companies and the government will take action against the drug companies found marketing substandard drugs under different sections of the IPC.

Meanwhile, the industry contends that the instructions issued by the UP chief minister are inconsistent with the scheme of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. While it might be necessary to involve police machinery in cases of clandestine activity of manufacturing and selling spurious and adulterated drug, it is not desirable to lodge FIR in every case in which drug manufactured and sold by the bonafide licensed manufacturer in routine course of business transaction is reported to be substandard, industry pleads.

Interestingly, all this is happening at a time when the union health ministry has issued a directive to the state drug authorities under section 33P of the D&C Act on the issue of Guidelines attached to the Spurious Drugs Act, making it mandatory for the state drug authorities to follow the Guidelines before executing the various provisions of the Spurious Drugs Act which was amended in late 2008 to enhance punishment for manufacturing and marketing spurious drugs.