Supreme Court Questions High Markups on Cancer Drugs
The Supreme Court is examining the rationale behind excessive markups on medicines, suggesting a cap of 16% above retailer prices.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the pricing of cancer drugs amid concerns over high markups.
A proposed uniform cap of 16% above the price to retailer (PTR) was discussed during the hearings.
The next hearing is scheduled for October 12, 2026.
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of India raised concerns regarding the exorbitant markups on cancer medications and other pharmaceuticals. During a session led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the court inquired why a standardized limit should not be established, capping the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) at 16% above the price to the retailer (PTR). This inquiry was part of ongoing petitions addressing the regulation of drug prices and the control of medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO) of 2013.
Justice Mehta pointed out a significant discrepancy, highlighting a specific cancer drug priced at approximately ₹27,000, while its PTR was only around ₹3,000. He remarked on the drastic difference, echoing earlier concerns about markups that can exceed tenfold. The bench also scrutinized the classification of medicines as essential or non-essential under the DPCO, noting that corporate hospitals often compel patients to purchase medications from their pharmacies, leading to inflated costs that taxpayers ultimately bear when treatments fall under government health schemes like Ayushman Bharat.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, acknowledged the issue and emphasized the need for a balanced approach. He stated, "I am not saying the petitioners are wrong, but some way which balances equities will have to be found." The petitions, including those from advocate Kishan Chand Jain, argue that while scheduled medicines have price ceilings, the majority of non-scheduled formulations—estimated at over 80% in number and value—allow manufacturers significant leeway in setting initial MRPs, subject to a maximum annual increase of 10%. This flexibility, according to the petitioners, results in steep markups that financially strain patients, many of whom resort to selling personal assets to afford treatment.
The court's remarks last week were particularly harsh, with the justices describing the pricing disparities as “broad daylight dacoity” and “extortion,” criticizing the lack of regulatory oversight. The matter is set for further hearings on October 12, 2026, as the court seeks to address these pressing concerns regarding drug pricing and patient welfare.
As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of the court's decisions could significantly affect pharmaceutical pricing policies and patient access to essential medicines across India.
