A judgement catering to larger public interest

With the advancement in medical science new hopes for a better quality of life have been generated, but the question of affordability of medicines still looms large. India, with a staggering 1.3 billion population and an astronomical high percentage of under privileged people offers a fertile ground for the mighty and powerful drugs and pharmaceutical manufacturers. So far all the hue and cry made against these ‘giants’ have surprisingly fallen deaf ears. Despite government appointed expert committees right from the Sankaran Committee to the Masood Committee and what not suggesting the price regulation of medicines no considerable progress has been made in this regard.

Now with the recent judgment dated October 21 the apex court has paved the way for fixing the maximum prices of bulk drugs and the retail prices of formulations. Coming down heavily on the tendency of the courts to grant interim stay on the orders and notifications fixing the maximum prices, the Supreme Court said, “in matters of this nature, where prices of essential commodities are fixed in order to maintain or increase supply of the commodities or for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair price, it is not right that the court should make any interim order staying the implementation of the notification fixing the prices,” and added, “ such orders are against the public interest and ought not to be made by a court unless the court is satisfied that no public interest is going to be served.”

While allowing a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India and dismissing the appeals filed by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd, the division bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice R K Agrawal in their 94-pages judgment categorically answered the following four questions in affirmative:
1. That the Central government’s notification dated July 13, 1999 issued under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 prescribing the norms for conversion cost, packaging charges and process loss of raw materials etc; was valid and that the said notification was not issued mechanically or without any application of mind.
2. That similarly other subsequent notifications re-notifying the norms prescribed on July 13, 1999 were also valid and the same were not issued mechanically or without any application of mind.
3. That various notifications issued by the Central government fixing the retail price or ceiling price of formulations without determining the norms for cost of packing material was valid in law; and
4. That fixing the retail price of a formulation without first fixing the sale price of a bulk drug utilised in the manufacture of a formulation is also valid in law.
With this landmark judgment the common man now can heave a sigh of relief and expect the government to make the prices of medicines affordable notwithstanding the might of the homegrown as well as international ‘giants’ who are always ready and willing to scuttle such a move.

SC on Hindutva
Shutting its doors on the face of the self-proclaimed guardian of secularism, the unrelenting lady, Teesta Setalvad, the seven judge bench of the Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no question of having a relook or reviewing its 1995 stand on ‘Hinditva.’ A known Modi-baiter Tista had approached the highest court with a plea to reconsider the definition of ‘Hindutva’ and declare the use of the term ‘Hindutva’ by a candidate or a political party to garner votes in an election as a ‘corrupt’ electoral practice. In the year 1995, the apex court had said that ‘Hindutva’ is not concerned with any religion but it is a way of life. Therefore, there would not be any violation of law if a candidate or political party solicits votes in the name of ‘Hindutva.’

Markandey Katju celebrity status!
Undoubtedly erudite respectable former judge of the Supreme Court, Markandey Katju by now has acquired the ‘celebrity’ status. And for this achievement (!) rather than any conscious efforts his slippery uncontrollable tongue deserves full marks. In the recent times Katju has described himself as ‘an Allahabadi Goonda’ carrying “a danda” waiting to beat the leader of the Maharashtra Nav Nirman Samiti (MNS) Raj Thakre who, according to him, is ‘a goonda’ and leads the goonda-raj movement.

In the same breath, Katju also described late Bal Thakre also as ‘a goonda.’ Reacting to the reported truce between the film producer Karan Johar and the MNS which was mediated by Chief minister of Maharashtra Fadanvis, this 70-plus crusader said, “Woh (i.e Chief Minister) do kaudi ka adami hai” and felt that he should be sacked immediately.

No doubt, the Indian Constitution under Article 19 grants to every citizen the freedom of expression but that is subject to reasonable restrictions. Who better than his Lordship Katju knows what are the “dos and don’ts” of this Article! Being a straight forward and call the spade a spade is one thing and hurling unsavoury epithets on the living as well as the dead persons is another. No law of the land permits anybody, including a sitting or a retired judge to call a person by names, belittle him as ‘a do kaudi ka adami’ and what not.

By DR H C UPADHYAY