The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Union government and private hospitals over steep markups on life-saving medicines, highlighting a case in which a cancer-treatment injection reportedly available to a medical distributor for ₹11,000 was charged at ₹1.30 lakh by a reputed hospital.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised concerns over the wide price disparity while hearing petitions concerning medicine pricing, generic prescriptions and the regulation of medical devices. The Court questioned the Centre’s decision to limit its trade-margin intervention to anti-cancer medicines and sought justification for the difference between the dealer price and the amount charged to patients.
“Can you show any justification for this loot, please? Why this difference? Where does the money go?” Justice Sandeep Mehta asked the Centre, according to reports of the proceedings.
The Bench also questioned the government’s claim that it was constantly calibrating medicine prices, observing that the disparity between ₹11,000 and ₹1.30 lakh could not be justified as price calibration. It stressed that patients undergoing treatment had little bargaining power and that hospitals should recover operational costs through legitimate means rather than imposing excessive markups on medicines.
Centre’s pricing policy under scrutiny
The hearing forms part of the Court’s continuing examination of medicine pricing under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013, and the scope of regulation for medicines outside scheduled price-control mechanisms.
The petitions raise concerns about the extent of medicines covered by price controls, the margins charged across the supply chain and the affordability of treatment. Earlier proceedings had also questioned why the Centre’s decision to cap trade margins at 30 per cent for selected non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines could not be extended more broadly.
Appearing for the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati maintained that comprehensive price control was not necessarily the solution, arguing that regulation had to balance affordability with the availability of medicines. The Centre has also maintained that medicine prices in India are comparatively low and that excessive intervention could affect the market and supplies.
The Bench considered submissions from the government and representatives of private hospitals. Hospital representatives argued that procuring medicines through in-house pharmacies was linked to quality assurance and the need to maintain hospital infrastructure and services. The Court questioned whether such considerations justified the substantial price differences cited during the hearing.
Order reserved
The proceedings are part of wider judicial scrutiny of medicine pricing, generic prescribing and trade margins, including the financial burden on patients and the public healthcare system.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court reserved its order in the matter. The implications for medicine-price regulation and the scope of trade-margin controls will depend on the Court’s eventual decision.
