The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL requesting doctors to specify possible risks and side effects of prescribed medicines on prescriptions. The court deemed such a directive as akin to judicial legislation, emphasizing that existing laws assign this duty to drug manufacturers and pharmacists.
Legislative Provisions
The Court highlighted existing legislative safeguards, such as Schedule D(II) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945, which mandates manufacturers to disclose drug side effects in package inserts. Additionally, Regulation 9.11 of Chapter 4 of the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, obligates pharmacists to inform patients about potential side effects.
Court’s Observation
The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “Since the legislature in its wisdom has elected to impose this duty on the manufacturer and the pharmacist, we do not find any ground for issuing a direction as prayed for in this PIL as it would amount to judicial legislation.”
The Court noted that the petitioner did not contest the sufficiency of information provided by manufacturers and pharmacists. Referring to past judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that it cannot direct the legislature to enact laws in a specific manner.
Given the existing legal framework and the judiciary’s limited role in legislative matters, the Court dismissed the PIL.
The Court’s decision underscores the importance of existing legal provisions and the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature.
Case Title: Jacob Vadakkanchery v. Union of India (2024:DHC:4066-DB)