Archive · 23 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Questions ₹27,000 MRP on ₹2,700 Cancer Drug
The Supreme Court heard complaints about the prices of cancer medicines.
One medicine was reportedly sold to retailers for ₹2,700 but had a printed MRP of ₹27,000.
The judges said this tenfold difference could unfairly hurt patients.
They called it “broad daylight dacoity” and asked why authorities had not acted.
The court also discussed medicines bought through the Ayushman Bharat scheme at very high prices.
A petitioner said price controls cover only some medicines.
Another petition asks doctors to prescribe generic medicines.
The court will hear the matter again on September 29.
The Supreme Court questioned why an essential cancer medicine priced at ₹2,700 for retailers carried an MRP of ₹27,000.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta described the alleged pricing gap as “broad daylight dacoity” against patients.
The bench criticized authorities for remaining silent and raised concerns about inflated prices under the Ayushman Bharat scheme.
Petitions seek stricter enforcement of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, and action against alleged unfair pricing practices.
The court also heard a plea seeking mandatory generic prescriptions and adjourned the matter until September 29.
- Who
- A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the petitions; Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj represented the Centre in one matter, and petitioner Kishan Chand Jain was identified in one report.
- What
- The court questioned an alleged tenfold difference between a cancer medicine’s ₹2,700 price to retailers and its ₹27,000 printed MRP.
- When
- The observations were made on Tuesday, and the next hearing is scheduled for September 29.
- Where
- The matter was heard before the Supreme Court in New Delhi.
- Why
- The petitions seek stricter medicine price controls, enforcement of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, action against alleged unfair pricing, and generic prescriptions.
Court and Petitioners’ Concerns
Government’s Stated Position
Medicine pricing
Court and Petitioners’ Concerns
The bench and petitioners raised concerns that large gaps between retailer prices and MRPs enable excessive charges, unfair trade practices, and disproportionate profits.
Government’s Stated Position
Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj said the government was not treating one of the proceedings as adversarial; the reports provide no detailed government response to the alleged pricing gap.
Regulatory coverage
Court and Petitioners’ Concerns
The petitioner submitted that ceiling-price controls cover only around 1,000 scheduled medicines, leaving nearly 82% of medicines as non-scheduled and allowing large price differences.
Government’s Stated Position
The reports do not state whether the government accepts or disputes the petitioner’s figures or proposed regulatory changes.
Generic prescriptions
Court and Petitioners’ Concerns
One petition seeks disciplinary action against medical practitioners who do not prescribe generic medicines.
Government’s Stated Position
The reports do not provide a specific response from the government or medical practitioners to this request.
- Printed MRP
- ₹27,000 for an essential cancer medicine
- Price to retailer
- ₹2,700
- Price difference
- The reported MRP was ten times the price to retailers
- Bench
- Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
- Regulation
- Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013
- Scheduled medicines
- The petitioner said the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority fixes ceiling prices for around 1,000 scheduled drugs
- Next hearing
- September 29
Sources
‘Broad daylight dacoity with the patients’: Supreme Court questions ₹27,000 MRP on ₹2,700 cancer drug
‘Broad daylight dacoity’: SC shocked over cancer drug priced at Rs 27,000 after supply at Rs 2,700