Our fight to stop pharma companies from selling banned and unsafe drugs in India
The case pertains to the ban on 344 fixed dose combinations (FDCs) which includes widely popular drugs like Saridon, and skin cream Panderm, antibiotic Lupidiclox and combination diabetes drug Gluconorm PG among others, imposed by the Government in 2016 based on the suggestion of an expert committee which deemed these combinations unsafe and irrational. Pharmaceutical companies who sell these combinations have since left no stone unturned to challenge the ban in manner that can only be called abrasive (and through litigation that can only be termed vexatious).
This complex case is best understood through a timeline of events:
March 2016: Government bans 344 FDC’s on the ground that they involve ‘risk’ to humans and safer alternatives were available based on the recommendations of the Kokate Committee. Subsequently, pharma companies selling these drugs challenged the ban in the High Court.
December 2016: The stay is confirmed by order of the Delhi High Court. The argument given by the Delhi High Court for quashing the ban was that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) was not Consulted.
December 15, 2017: All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN) along with other health rights organizations take the matter to the Supreme Court through an SLP (Special Leave Petition) and the Court on 15th December, 2017 rules that there is no need for the government to
consult the DTAB for exercise of powers to prohibit (ban), restrict or regulate under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Having stated this, the Court refers the Kokate report to the DTAB or an expert committee and mandates them to explicate the recommendations of the Kokate Committee on each of the 344 (plus five FDCs added later.)
February, 2018: The government appoints another expert committee to look into the Kokate Committee recommendations. The DTAB Subcommittee is headed by Nilima Kshirsagar, National Chair of Clinical Pharmacology, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), and other subject medical experts, persons with impeccable scientific credentials.
August 2018: The DTAB Subcommittee upholds the recommendations of the Kakote Committee and recommends that 343 FDCs plus restriction/regulation on another six FDCs be banned. Immediately, manufacturers of the banned FDCs approach the Delhi High Court questioning the logic, legality, and raison d’être of the ban. Delhi High Court decides to relook into the the recommendations of the DTAB Subcommittee and re-examine the call for ban based on two aspects; whether a particular explanation in the report recommending ban on a FDC is logical and whether the subcommittee has applied its mind as evidenced by formulations recommending the ban.
January 2019: Deciding over a batch of FDCs used for endocrine disorders, Justice Bakhru deems all but one drug combination unfit for re-evaluation by the DTAB committee, thereby upholding the ban on all but one FDC used for endocrine disorders.
Certain drugs/FDC’s are deemed unsafe and irrational in the following cases:
Drugs with potential safety risks
Drugs that lack evidence of effectiveness
Health fraud drugs
Drugs that present direct challenges to the new drug approval and over-the-counter (OTC) drug monograph systems
Drugs that are reformulated to evade enforcement action
The market for unsafe, irrational FDCs in India is at least one-fourth of the total pharma market which is valued at Rs. 1.3 trillion.
Lawyers associated with HRLN represent All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN) against the pharmaceutical companies selling the banned FDC’s.
Watch this space for the latest updates on ‘Dangerous drugs that are unfit for use but continue being sold in India’. Please find attached below, orders on the case.
- 1547650515771_ordjud (6)(1)
Slideshow - Related Post
01/05/2020Journalists laid off: The Covid-19 Lockdown
15/04/2020Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons
10/04/2020Fact Finding Report on Rohingya Refugees
10/04/2020Assessment Report of Rohinyas in Faridabad
10/04/2020Assessment Report of Rohingyas in Jammu
10/04/2020Police Sensitisation and Trainings
03/04/2020Shaikh mujtaba farooq v. Union of India
29/03/2020HRLN's Response to Delhi Riots
03/02/2020Lesbian daughter protected
03/02/2020Lynching Case anticipatory bail cancelled
03/02/2020Sentence Condoned after fourteen years
03/12/2019Sexual Harassment Judgement - Delhi
09/10/2019Silencing Journalists in India
21/01/2019Defending Freedom of Speech and Expression
20/01/2019Defending the Defenders: Manipur meeting
09/01/2019Read: Critique of Transgender Bill 2018
29/12/2018Recent updates from the Kashmir Unit
13/12/2018Child marriage was stopped in Rajasthan
12/12/2018M.A. Antony @ Antappan v. State of Kerala
12/12/2018Cases of Prisoners on Death Row
05/12/2018Defending the Defenders: Guwahati meeting
28/11/2018Chhanu Lal Verma v. The State of Chattigarh
17/11/2018Defending the Defenders: Bangalore meeting
26/11/2017Anjali Anand vs. State of M.P. and Others
22/10/2017Case of domestic abuse
28/07/2017SC: Re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons
06/07/2017Minors granted refugee status by UNHCR
23/09/2016SC Acquits Person on Death Row
16/07/2016Petition filed for compensation for land
16/07/2016Lack of emergency facilities at AIIMS Patna
13/05/2016Case of Domestic Violence in Itanagar
17/07/2015Implementation of the NALSA Judgment
20/04/2013National Consultation on Prison Legal Aid
02/04/2012Forced Sterilization and Family Planning
03/02/2012SEEMA LEPCHA vs STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS
06/04/2011Bhalaswa Lok Shakti Manch Vs GNCT Of Delhi
14/01/2011HIV +ve pregnant woman denied treatment
16/07/2010Hiralal M. Khatik v. Central Railway
16/07/2010HRLN interventions in homeless shelters
16/07/2010Prajwala v. Union of India
16/07/2010State vs. Abdul Majid
16/07/2010AM* vs. Government of Haryana
16/07/2010Mr. Anthony Omondi Osino vs. FRRO
27/01/2010Writ Petition © No. 196 of 2001
14/07/2005Amit Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan
02/02/2005Pratap Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Anr