Supreme Court calls cancer drug overpricing 'broad daylight dacoity'
Supreme Court expresses shock over overpricing of essential cancer medicines, noting one drug's MRP was ten times its price to retailers.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday described the overpricing of essential cancer medicines as "broad daylight dacoity" against patients, expressing surprise that enforcement authorities had remained silent on the matter.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while hearing two petitions raising drug-related issues, including a plea for strict price control over medicines. The court noted that one essential cancer drug carried a printed maximum retail price of ₹27,000 even though it was supplied to retailers for ₹2,700.
"The MRP is 10 times the rate at which it is provided to the retailers. If this is not extortion, then what is it? People sell their houses and ornaments to get treatment," the Bench said, calling the situation "absolute rampage and carnage." The court termed the pricing "absolutely shocking" and questioned how patients could be cheated in this manner.
One petitioner told the Bench that the plea also raised the issue of prescription of generic medicines by registered medical practitioners, and argued that fixing the MRP of medicines was of critical importance. Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre in one of the pleas, said the government was not treating the matter as adversarial litigation.
The Bench observed that price fixation was a major issue and posted the matter for further hearing on September 29, 2026.
One of the petitions sought directions to authorities to make drug formulations more cost-effective by preventing alleged unethical overpricing of essential medicines by pharmaceutical companies and retailers. It also sought strict enforcement of price control under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, to prevent violations of the price-fixing mechanism in the drug supply chain and disproportionate profit-making by retailers through unfair trade practices. The second plea sought disciplinary action against medical practitioners for not prescribing generic medicines.