<div style="float: left;">
	<img align="" alt="Image via Shutterstock" class="imgCont" height="275" src="http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/img/article/2016-01/18/full/1453104482-0714.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #DDD; margin-right: 10px; padding: 1px; float: left; z-index: 0;" title="Image via Shutterstock" width="370" />
	<div>
		The Central government finally summarised its defence today in the Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drug ban by which it had prohibited 344 FDCs from being produced and marketed in March of this year.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		The ban had been challenged almost immediately by numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Delhi High Court and has been a periodic post-lunch feature in Justice Rajiv Sahai End law&#39;s court since that time.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		After hearing initial submissions in the petitions, the court had on March 14 provided the manufacturers interim relief by staying the operation of the ban vis-a-vis the petitioners.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		In today&#39;s hearing, the Central government concluded its three-day long argument justifying the ban, centred on the grounds of public safety and pharmaceutical efficacy. In its summary, Advocate Rajul Jain appearing for the Central Government reiterated his earlier submissions and defended the action taken under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by submitting that the section, in line with the spirit of the legislation, empowered the Central Government to act independently at any point in time to regulate drug safety standards.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		He clarified the framework of the Act and identified the responsibilities of the various governmental bodies under the legislation.Jain also highlighted the wide powers given to the Central government to frame rules under the statute and conduct regulatory assessments in the interest of public well-being.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		While defending the necessity of government supervision, the counsel stressed on the dynamic nature of the pharmaceutical industry and drew from the Kokate Committee Report, upon which the subsequent action was taken, which states that: &quot;In the field of medicine, no data is final and is always open to review. What was acceptable a few years ago may not be so now.&quot;</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		The government&#39;s stand was opposed by the petitioner counsels and in particular the companies whose drugs had been previously approved under the mechanism of the Act (of which there are seven). The opposition led the presiding Justice End law to remark, &quot;You (Central Government) have banned the drugs without giving an opportunity for approval (or re-approval). That is what is troubling me.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		&quot;In response, Jain drew the court&#39;s attention to the conduct of the aggrieved companies. He explained that the government had requested for data numerous times before conducting the evaluation and no one could claim to be left unaware.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		&quot;If they (the companies) chose not to come, they cannot be given benefit for their own wrong-doing&quot; the counsel said. &quot;Even if they had an NOC or approval, it was still incumbent on them to act in public interest,&quot; Jain further added.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		While continuing his arguments, the advocate for the government also attempted to clarify the scope of judicial review in relation to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He referred to various case laws where courts in the past have upheld such governmental action and restricted intervention only on the grounds of reasonableness and in cases without adequate public interest at stake.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		Jain contended that the exercise in the present case was conducted in a logical and streamlined manner and upon the expert advice of the (Kokate) committee, which have sufficiently met the requirements attached to &#39;satisfaction&#39; of the Central government, as contemplated in the Act.</div>
	<br>
	<div>
		After hearing the submissions advanced, the court extended its interim order in favour of the manufacturers and listed the matter again on May 19 for petitioner rebuttals.</div>
</div>

The Centre had prohibited 344 FDCs from being produced and marketed in March

Centre summarises stand on FDC ban before Delhi HC

The Centre had prohibited 344 FDCs from being produced and marketed in March

More From This Section

Alibaba watches e-commerce policy fineprint before spelling out India plan

April CPI rises to 5.39%; March IIP drops to 0.1%

Export duty on high grade iron ore to remain unchanged

India, China, 3 others sign pact on tax info sharing

Explore News