MEDICAL LAW

The Delhi High Court allows 344 potentially dangerous combination drugs to remain in the market

The health ministry had ordered the manufacture and sale of these drugs to be stopped, a move which the pharmaceutical industry opposed in court.

On December 1, the Delhi High Court set aside the government’s ban on hundreds of fixed dose combination medicines that included drugs often taken to treat colds and coughs like Corex, Vicks Action 500 and D’Cold.

In his judgment, Justice Endlaw of the Delhi High Court quashed 344 statutory orders issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. These statutory orders issued on March 10, 2016 prohibited the manufacture and sale of 344 fixed-dose-combination or FDC drugs.

As the name suggests, FDCs are combinations of existing drugs. The medical rationale for FDCs is to increase patient compliance where treatment of a disease requires patients to be treated with more than one drug. Instead of prescribing multiple tablets to the patient and risking the patient not consuming all of them as required, it makes sense to combine multiple drugs into a single medication – usually in the form of one tablet. The World Health Organisation has supported the development of FDCs in one of its reports, provided there is proof to substantiate the safety and efficacy of such combinations.

All FDCs are combinations of existing drugs which have already been approved. However, two drugs may work very differently when consumed independent of each other and when combined into one tablet. That is to say, two drugs which work perfectly well when administered independently to a patient can cause severe adverse reactions when combined into a FDC. It follows that FDCs should be well regulated by authorities. Once the need for a particular FDC has been established, its safety and efficacy must be proven. That has unfortunately not been the case in India.

India’s poor history of regulating FDCs

Since the mid-eighties, the medical community has expressed alarm with the large number of dangerous FDCs made available in India by both the foreign and domestic pharmaceutical industry. The National List of Essential Medicines prescribes only 16 FDCs. Yet, there are thousands of FDCs available in the Indian market in several different permutations and combinations. Over the last decade, the 59th report of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Health, Lancet and several other publications have pointed out shocking instances of irrational and dangerous FDCs being marketed in India.

So how and why did these FDCs flood the Indian market?

The Drug Price Control Order, which is promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, vests in the government the power to regulate drug prices. This price-control was mostly limited to single-ingredient drugs mentioned on the National List of Essential Medicines and not to combination of such drugs as made available in the form of FDCs. When not subject to price control regulation under the DPCO, pharmaceutical companies are at liberty to set their own prices and earn higher profits. This is not good news in a country where a majority of the population is uninsured and pays for medical expenses out of their own pockets. According to the industry’s own estimates the impact of the FDC ban was Rs 5,000 crores. This figure does not include the several hundred FDCs which are being reviewed for a ban.

The regulatory framework for approving new drugs and FDCs in India remains ambiguous. The central government has claimed that state licensing authorities have been “approving” such drugs despite lacking the authority to do so. This is likely true. But, at the same time, some controversial FDCs have been authorised by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, the central government body in charge of drug regulation, itself. In 2012, the Ministry of Health came under fire in the 59th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health on the manner of approval of FDCs. The report stated:

  “The Committee is of the view that those unauthorized FDCs that pose risk to patients and communities such as a combination of two antibacterials need to be withdrawn immediately due to danger of developing resistance that affects the entire population. The Committee is of the view that Section 26A is adequate to deal with the problem of irrational and/or FDCs not cleared by CDSCO.”  

The Kokate Expert Committee report

The Standing Committee’s report had its effect and although the Ministry of Health ignored several other recommendations of the committee, on September 16, 2014 it set up an expert committee headed by Professor Chandrakant Kokate to examine the complaints against FDCs. The Kokate Committee examined 6,214 FDCs and in its final report which was submitted to the Central Government on February 10, 2016 recommended the outright banning of 1083 FDCs on the grounds that they were irrational combinations, while recommending a further study on several other FDCs which were found to be rational but lacking in data on safety and efficacy. Acting on these recommendations the Ministry of Health issued the 344 statutory orders referred to in the beginning of this article.

One of the 344 statutory orders banning fixed combination drugs.
One of the 344 statutory orders banning fixed combination drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry led by Pfizer, Abbot, Cipla, and Dr. Reddy’s promptly filed 454 petitions before the Delhi High Court and were represented by an army of lawyers led by 21 senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal and P Chidambaram and supported by 186 advocates.

Justice Endlaw had issued an interim stay on all 344 statutory orders on March 16, 2016. At the time, an article by Dhvani Mehta of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy published on Scroll.in
had predicted that the ban announced by the Ministry of Health would be upheld by the High Court given the nature of the powers vested in the government under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Unfortunately, Justice Endlaw has quashed all 343 statutory orders in his judgment on December 1, 2016. With respect, it is submitted that Justice Endlaw’s judgment is flawed and without basis in law.

The government’s power under Section 26A

Justice Endlaw has ruled that the central government is required to consult the two statutory bodies created under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 before exercising its power under Section 26A and that it had banned the 343 FDCs without consulting these bodies. These two bodies are the Drugs Technical Advisory Board and the Drugs Consultative Committee. Justice Endlaw’s conclusion however has no basis in the text of the statute or in precedent. Section 26A does not require the central government to seek the advice of either body. Similarly Section 5 and Section 7 which create the the bodies do not impose any such obligation on the Central government. So why then did the High Court reach a conclusion to the contrary?

The Court cited six judgments on the execrcise of power under Section 26A to demonstrate how the Central Government had in previous cases, defended its actions under Section 26A on the grounds that it had consulted the Drugs Technical Advisory Board and the Drugs Consultative Committee. However, in all, except the one case, the issue of whether the two bodies needed to be consulted was not at issue because the government had already sought their advice. In the case of Cipla v. Union of India, a single judge of the Madras High Court had quashed a notification issued under Section 26A on the grounds that advisory board and consultative committee were not consulted.

However, as argued by the government and duly noted by Justice Endlaw there are two other judgments, one each from the Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court which disagreed with the single judge’s ruling in the Cipla case: Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, v. Union of India and Lundbeck India Private Limited vs Union Of India. Both judges ruled that Section 26A allowed the central government to exercise its powers without consulting the two bodies.

Play

Rather than resolve the conflict between these judgments under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, the Delhi High Court fell back on a litany of other judgments decided under other laws to conclude that if a statute created certain institutions, those institutions would have to be consulted prior to taking any decisions under that law. This line of reasoning is not convincing. The “golden rule” of statutory interpretation is that the black letter of the law is to be given a literal interpretation unless such a literal interpretation results in an absurd result, in which case the court can look beyond the black letter of the law. In this case, a literal reading of Section 26A does not result in an absurd result by any standard.

Precautionary principle

The absurd consequence of the Delhi High Court’s judgment is that hundreds of dangerous drugs continue to be available on the market despite a committee of experts finding these drugs to be irrational and dangerous for human beings. This is an unacceptable judicial result. Other judges faced with similar scenarios have invoked the precautionary principle to rule in favour of public health. In the Macleods Pharmaceuticals case referred to above, Justice V Ramasubramanian had held:

“It is well recognised that while dealing with arguments relating to improper and insufficient assessment of risk factors in cases concerning public health, the Courts are obliged to apply the “precautionary principle”.

As per this principle, where there is a scientific uncertainty on an issue of public health, regulators and courts should take precautionary measures to protect public health. The precautionary principle has been widely accepted in Indian environmental jurisprudence. There is no reason to not follow this principle while regulating dangerous drugs that have an impact on public health.

The author is a research associate at the School of Law, Singapore Management University.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Relying on the power of habits to solve India’s mammoth sanitation problem

Adopting three simple habits can help maximise the benefits of existing sanitation infrastructure.

India’s sanitation problem is well documented – the country was recently declared as having the highest number of people living without basic sanitation facilities. Sanitation encompasses all conditions relating to public health - especially sewage disposal and access to clean drinking water. Due to associated losses in productivity caused by sickness, increased healthcare costs and increased mortality, India recorded a loss of 5.2% of its GDP to poor sanitation in 2015. As tremendous as the economic losses are, the on-ground, human consequences of poor sanitation are grim - about one in 10 deaths, according to the World Bank.

Poor sanitation contributes to about 10% of the world’s disease burden and is linked to even those diseases that may not present any correlation at first. For example, while lack of nutrition is a direct cause of anaemia, poor sanitation can contribute to the problem by causing intestinal diseases which prevent people from absorbing nutrition from their food. In fact, a study found a correlation between improved sanitation and reduced prevalence of anaemia in 14 Indian states. Diarrhoeal diseases, the most well-known consequence of poor sanitation, are the third largest cause of child mortality in India. They are also linked to undernutrition and stunting in children - 38% of Indian children exhibit stunted growth. Improved sanitation can also help reduce prevalence of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Though not a cause of high mortality rate, NTDs impair physical and cognitive development, contribute to mother and child illness and death and affect overall productivity. NTDs caused by parasitic worms - such as hookworms, whipworms etc. - infect millions every year and spread through open defecation. Improving toilet access and access to clean drinking water can significantly boost disease control programmes for diarrhoea, NTDs and other correlated conditions.

Unfortunately, with about 732 million people who have no access to toilets, India currently accounts for more than half of the world population that defecates in the open. India also accounts for the largest rural population living without access to clean water. Only 16% of India’s rural population is currently served by piped water.

However, there is cause for optimism. In the three years of Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, the country’s sanitation coverage has risen from 39% to 65% and eight states and Union Territories have been declared open defecation free. But lasting change cannot be ensured by the proliferation of sanitation infrastructure alone. Ensuring the usage of toilets is as important as building them, more so due to the cultural preference for open defecation in rural India.

According to the World Bank, hygiene promotion is essential to realise the potential of infrastructure investments in sanitation. Behavioural intervention is most successful when it targets few behaviours with the most potential for impact. An area of public health where behavioural training has made an impact is WASH - water, sanitation and hygiene - a key issue of UN Sustainable Development Goal 6. Compliance to WASH practices has the potential to reduce illness and death, poverty and improve overall socio-economic development. The UN has even marked observance days for each - World Water Day for water (22 March), World Toilet Day for sanitation (19 November) and Global Handwashing Day for hygiene (15 October).

At its simplest, the benefits of WASH can be availed through three simple habits that safeguard against disease - washing hands before eating, drinking clean water and using a clean toilet. Handwashing and use of toilets are some of the most important behavioural interventions that keep diarrhoeal diseases from spreading, while clean drinking water is essential to prevent water-borne diseases and adverse health effects of toxic contaminants. In India, Hindustan Unilever Limited launched the Swachh Aadat Swachh Bharat initiative, a WASH behaviour change programme, to complement the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. Through its on-ground behaviour change model, SASB seeks to promote the three basic WASH habits to create long-lasting personal hygiene compliance among the populations it serves.

This touching film made as a part of SASB’s awareness campaign shows how lack of knowledge of basic hygiene practices means children miss out on developmental milestones due to preventable diseases.

Play

SASB created the Swachhata curriculum, a textbook to encourage adoption of personal hygiene among school going children. It makes use of conceptual learning to teach primary school students about cleanliness, germs and clean habits in an engaging manner. Swachh Basti is an extensive urban outreach programme for sensitising urban slum residents about WASH habits through demos, skits and etc. in partnership with key local stakeholders such as doctors, anganwadi workers and support groups. In Ghatkopar, Mumbai, HUL built the first-of-its-kind Suvidha Centre - an urban water, hygiene and sanitation community centre. It provides toilets, handwashing and shower facilities, safe drinking water and state-of-the-art laundry operations at an affordable cost to about 1,500 residents of the area.

HUL’s factory workers also act as Swachhata Doots, or messengers of change who teach the three habits of WASH in their own villages. This mobile-led rural behaviour change communication model also provides a volunteering opportunity to those who are busy but wish to make a difference. A toolkit especially designed for this purpose helps volunteers approach, explain and teach people in their immediate vicinity - their drivers, cooks, domestic helps etc. - about the three simple habits for better hygiene. This helps cast the net of awareness wider as regular interaction is conducive to habit formation. To learn more about their volunteering programme, click here. To learn more about the Swachh Aadat Swachh Bharat initiative, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hindustan Unilever and not by the Scroll editorial team.