Why the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment on combination drugs sends wrong signals

It indicates to High Courts that judges can sidestep the legislative procedures on complex regulatory issues if these are deemed inconvenient.

On December 15, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on the government’s decision to ban marketing of 344 fixed dose combinations or FDCs – medicines that are basically a cocktail of two or more drugs that have been sold by the Indian pharmaceutical industry since the late seventies as a means to circumvent price control orders by the government. Many of these FDCs have been approved by State Licensing Authorities in violation of the existing Drugs and Cosmetics Act and lack any scientific and clinical rationale establishing their efficacy and safety to be used for therapeutic benefit.

The government’s decision to ban these “irrational” drugs was made under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and was based on the recommendations of an expert committee headed by Professor CK Kokate. The ban was poised to hit the profits of the pharmaceutical industry since there are literally thousands of FDCs on the markets. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry challenged the ban of these FDCs on the grounds that the Central Government had not consulted the Drugs Technical Advisory Board or DTAB, which is an advisory body set up under Section 5 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. These petitions before the Delhi High Court succeeded and the orders banning the FDCs were set aside by Justice Endlaw on the grounds that the government had not consulted the DTAB. This judgment was then appealed to the Supreme Court by the central government and the Supreme Court has correctly overruled the Delhi High Court’s ruling on this point, concluding that Section 26A does not require the Central Government to consult the DTAB. The judgment states:

“It is clear that the additional power that is given to the Central Government under Section 26A does not refer to and, therefore, mandate any previous consultation with the DTAB. On the contrary, the Central Government may be ‘satisfied’ on any relevant material that a drug is likely to involve any risk to human beings etc. as a result of which it is necessary in public interest to regulate, restrict or prohibit manufacture, sale or distribution thereof. So long as the Central Government’s satisfaction can be said to be based on relevant material, it is not possible to say that not having consulted the DTAB, the power exercised under the said Section would be non est.”   

After making such a strong case on why Section 26A does not require the DTAB to be consulted, the Supreme Court, apparently acting on a suggestion by the government counsel, decided to order the government to do exactly the opposite, that is, refer the matter to the DTAB. The judgment states that the case of the 344 FDCs “should be sent to the DTAB, constituted under Section 5 of the Drugs Act, so that it can examine each of these cases and ultimately send a report to the Central Government” and clarifies that this is a one-off event given the peculiar facts of this case.

It is astonishing that the government counsel made such a recommendation to the Supreme Court to basically ignore Parliamentary law and worrying that the Supreme Court accepted this recommendation contradicting its own judgment. From the wording of Section 26A, it is absolutely clear that the power to ban drugs lies with the central government. The question then is why the Supreme Court ignored the procedure established by Parliament and replaced statutory law with its own procedure?

What makes the matter worse is the Supreme Court’s direction to the DTAB to grant a hearing to all the pharmaceutical companies who currently market these irrational drugs and prepare a detailed report before making its recommendations to the Central Government. This directly contradicts the Court’s assertion earlier in its judgment where it refused to entertain this very question of whether the power under Section 26A is legislative or quasi-judicial in nature, stating “Though arguments have been made as to whether Section 26A is legislative in nature and therefore excludes natural justice, we do not propose to go into the same inasmuch as since the learned single Judge’s judgment is being set aside on one point and one point alone”.

If the Court had instead addressed this specific issue, it would have realised that the power under Section 26A is legislative in nature, meaning that the government is not required under law to hear the parties affected by the legislation. A legislative power is the equivalent of law making and it is nobody’s case that the government has to mandatorily hear everybody before making law (its desirable but not always feasible). Only those authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions are required to follow the principles of natural justice.

By forcing the DTAB to now conduct hearings, and by implication follow the principles of natural justice, we are looking at a scenario where the pharmaceutical industry will spend hours on making arguments why they need to continue to market these irrational drugs and use every opportunity to drag DTAB to the courts for alleged procedural infirmities.

Misunderstanding the Kokate committee’s mandate

One of the most glaring problems with the Supreme Court’s judgment is its virtual nullification of the Kokate Committee’s extensive report when it states:

“….we find that the Kokate Committee did deliberate on the 344 FDCs plus 5 FDCs and did come to a conclusion that the aforesaid FDCs be banned, but we are not clear as to what exactly the reasons for such conclusions are, and whether it was necessary in the public interest to take the extreme step of prohibiting such FDCs, instead of restricting or regulating their manufacture and supply.”

This conclusion is incorrect in law because it was never the remit of the Kokate Committee to make a policy determination under Section 26A. In other words, the central government never delegated the power under Section 26A to the Kokate Committee. The only job of the committee was to examine the drugs and provide a scientific opinion on their therapeutic benefit. In its report, the Kokate Committee makes a scientific determination that several hundred FDCs are irrational – medical parlance for the fact that these drugs lack therapeutic justification. It was then the job of the central government to make the policy determination of whether these drugs were required to be banned on the grounds under Section 26A based on a scientific recommendation of the Kokate Committee.

This policy determination was made by the central government, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, when it issued a statutory order for each and every one of the 344 FDCs. Each of the statutory orders clearly state that the central government is convinced that the use of the FDC is “likely to involve risk to human beings whereas safer alternatives to the said drug are available” and therefore it was exercising its powers to prohibit the marketing of these drugs. It was precisely these orders that were the subject of the judicial review before the courts and not the Kokate Committee report.

Surprisingly, these statutory orders are not discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in its judgment. It should therefore not be a surprise when the Supreme Court makes another error in judgment when it directs the DTAB to make a determination under Section 26A, which in its opinion the Kokate Committee did not make, that is, the grounds under Section 26A that requires the drug to be banned. In doing so, the Supreme Court once again appears to have ignored a fundamental fact that Section 26A vests this power solely with the health ministry that is administered by an elected representative of the people and not unelected bureaucrats of the DTAB.

An altogether different question arises as to why the government counsel proposed this mode of action to the court, despite its clear prior rationale leading to the action it took to protect public health in the first place.

This judgement of the Supreme Court in Pfizer & Ors. v. Union of India, is gravely flawed and needs to be recalled by the Supreme Court because in its current form it sends a signal out to all the High Courts that judges can simply sidestep the legislative procedure on a complex regulatory issue if such a procedure is inconvenient.

The humility of the court to admit its errors will not diminish its standing.

Dinesh Thakur is public health activist & chairman of Medassure Global Compliance Corporation. Prashant Reddy T is assistant professor at NALSAR University of Law.

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

What hospitals can do to drive entrepreneurship and enhance patient experience

Hospitals can perform better by partnering with entrepreneurs and encouraging a culture of intrapreneurship focused on customer centricity.

At the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, visitors don’t have to worry about navigating their way across the complex hospital premises. All they need to do is download wayfinding tools from the installed digital signage onto their smartphone and get step by step directions. Other hospitals have digital signage in surgical waiting rooms that share surgery updates with the anxious families waiting outside, or offer general information to visitors in waiting rooms. Many others use digital registration tools to reduce check-in time or have Smart TVs in patient rooms that serve educational and anxiety alleviating content.

Most of these tech enabled solutions have emerged as hospitals look for better ways to enhance patient experience – one of the top criteria in evaluating hospital performance. Patient experience accounts for 25% of a hospital’s Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) score as per the US government’s Centres for Medicare and Mediaid Services (CMS) programme. As a Mckinsey report says, hospitals need to break down a patient’s journey into various aspects, clinical and non-clinical, and seek ways of improving every touch point in the journey. As hospitals also need to focus on delivering quality healthcare, they are increasingly collaborating with entrepreneurs who offer such patient centric solutions or encouraging innovative intrapreneurship within the organization.

At the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott, some of the speakers from diverse industry backgrounds brought up the role of entrepreneurship in order to deliver on patient experience.

Getting the best from collaborations

Speakers such as Dr Naresh Trehan, Chairman and Managing Director - Medanta Hospitals, and Meena Ganesh, CEO and MD - Portea Medical, who spoke at the panel discussion on “Are we fit for the world of new consumers?”, highlighted the importance of collaborating with entrepreneurs to fill the gaps in the patient experience eco system. As Dr Trehan says, “As healthcare service providers we are too steeped in our own work. So even though we may realize there are gaps in customer experience delivery, we don’t want to get distracted from our core job, which is healthcare delivery. We would rather leave the job of filling those gaps to an outsider who can do it well.”

Meena Ganesh shares a similar view when she says that entrepreneurs offer an outsider’s fresh perspective on the existing gaps in healthcare. They are therefore better equipped to offer disruptive technology solutions that put the customer right at the center. Her own venture, Portea Medical, was born out of a need in the hitherto unaddressed area of patient experience – quality home care.

There are enough examples of hospitals that have gained significantly by partnering with or investing in such ventures. For example, the Children’s Medical Centre in Dallas actively invests in tech startups to offer better care to its patients. One such startup produces sensors smaller than a grain of sand, that can be embedded in pills to alert caregivers if a medication has been taken or not. Another app delivers care givers at customers’ door step for check-ups. Providence St Joseph’s Health, that has medical centres across the U.S., has invested in a range of startups that address different patient needs – from patient feedback and wearable monitoring devices to remote video interpretation and surgical blood loss monitoring. UNC Hospital in North Carolina uses a change management platform developed by a startup in order to improve patient experience at its Emergency and Dermatology departments. The platform essentially comes with a friendly and non-intrusive way to gather patient feedback.

When intrapreneurship can lead to patient centric innovation

Hospitals can also encourage a culture of intrapreneurship within the organization. According to Meena Ganesh, this would mean building a ‘listening organization’ because as she says, listening and being open to new ideas leads to innovation. Santosh Desai, MD& CEO - Future Brands Ltd, who was also part of the panel discussion, feels that most innovations are a result of looking at “large cultural shifts, outside the frame of narrow business”. So hospitals will need to encourage enterprising professionals in the organization to observe behavior trends as part of the ideation process. Also, as Dr Ram Narain, Executive Director, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, points out, they will need to tell the employees who have the potential to drive innovative initiatives, “Do not fail, but if you fail, we still back you.” Innovative companies such as Google actively follow this practice, allowing employees to pick projects they are passionate about and work on them to deliver fresh solutions.

Realizing the need to encourage new ideas among employees to enhance patient experience, many healthcare enterprises are instituting innovative strategies. Henry Ford System, for example, began a system of rewarding great employee ideas. One internal contest was around clinical applications for wearable technology. The incentive was particularly attractive – a cash prize of $ 10,000 to the winners. Not surprisingly, the employees came up with some very innovative ideas that included: a system to record mobility of acute care patients through wearable trackers, health reminder system for elderly patients and mobile game interface with activity trackers to encourage children towards exercising. The employees admitted later that the exercise was so interesting that they would have participated in it even without a cash prize incentive.

Another example is Penn Medicine in Philadelphia which launched an ‘innovation tournament’ across the organization as part of its efforts to improve patient care. Participants worked with professors from Wharton Business School to prepare for the ideas challenge. More than 1,750 ideas were submitted by 1,400 participants, out of which 10 were selected. The focus was on getting ideas around the front end and some of the submitted ideas included:

  • Check-out management: Exclusive waiting rooms with TV, Internet and other facilities for patients waiting to be discharged so as to reduce space congestion and make their waiting time more comfortable.
  • Space for emotional privacy: An exclusive and friendly space for individuals and families to mourn the loss of dear ones in private.
  • Online patient organizer: A web based app that helps first time patients prepare better for their appointment by providing check lists for documents, medicines, etc to be carried and giving information regarding the hospital navigation, the consulting doctor etc.
  • Help for non-English speakers: Iconography cards to help non-English speaking patients express themselves and seek help in case of emergencies or other situations.

As Arlen Meyers, MD, President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs, says in a report, although many good ideas come from the front line, physicians must also be encouraged to think innovatively about patient experience. An academic study also builds a strong case to encourage intrapreneurship among nurses. Given they comprise a large part of the front-line staff for healthcare delivery, nurses should also be given the freedom to create and design innovative systems for improving patient experience.

According to a Harvard Business Review article quoted in a university study, employees who have the potential to be intrapreneurs, show some marked characteristics. These include a sense of ownership, perseverance, emotional intelligence and the ability to look at the big picture along with the desire, and ideas, to improve it. But trust and support of the management is essential to bringing out and taking the ideas forward.

Creating an environment conducive to innovation is the first step to bringing about innovation-driven outcomes. These were just some of the insights on healthcare management gleaned from the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott. In over 150 countries, Abbott, which is among the top 100 global innovator companies, is working with hospitals and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of health services.

To read more content on best practices for hospital leaders, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal here.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the marketing team and not by the editorial staff.