Terming it a “broad daylight dacoity” against patients, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 22, 2026) expressed shock over the overpricing of essential cancer medicines , noting that one drug carried an MRP of ₹27,000 despite being supplied to retailers for ₹2,700.
The observations came when the Supreme Court was hearing two petitions that raised drug-related issues, including that of ensuring strict price control over medicines. If this is not extortion, then what it is? “This is absolute rampage and carnage. The Bench questioned how the patients could be cheated like this. Additional Solicitor General K.M. The Bench observed that price fixation was a major issue. One of the petitions sought a direction to authorities to make drug formulations more cost-effective by preventing alleged unethical overpricing of essential medicines by pharma companies and retailers. The other plea has sought disciplinary action against medical practitioners for not prescribing generic medicines to patients.
“The MRP is 10 times the rate at which it is provided to the retailers. It posted the matter for further hearing on September 29, 2026. It also sought directions to ensure strict price control under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, to prevent violations of the price-fixing mechanism in the drug supply chain and disproportionate profit-making by retailers through unfair trade practices.
“It is very surprising that the authorities who are supposed to take action on this are silent,” a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said. The court termed it “absolutely shocking” that the printed MRP of an essential cancer drug was ₹27,000 when the price to retailer (PTR) was ₹2,700. People sell their houses, ornaments to get treatment,” the Bench said. This is broad daylight dacoity with patients,” it said. One of the petitioners told the Bench that his plea also raised the issue concerning the prescription of generic medicines by registered medical practitioners. He said fixing MRP of medicines was of critical importance. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre in one of the pleas, said the government was not treating it as an adversarial litigation.
