{
  "id": 10690974,
  "title": "Supreme Court Questions Medicine Markups, Suggests Uniform 16 Per Cent Cap Above Retailer Price",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/29/supreme-court-questions-medicine-markups-suggests-uniform-16-per-cent",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-29T12:35:44.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Press Journal",
    "slug": "free-press-journal",
    "url": "https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/supreme-court-questions-medicine-markups-suggests-uniform-16-per-cent-cap-above-retailer-price"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Supreme Court inquired into the substantial markups on cancer drugs and other medicines, proposing a consistent 16% ceiling above the price to retailers (PTR) for the maximum retail price (MRP). A bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing petitions regarding medicine price regulation, generic prescriptions, and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO) 2013. The court's queries brought attention to the vast disparity between the prices paid by retailers for specific medicines and the eventual charges to patients, as reported by Live Law. The bench emphasized the extreme gap, citing a cancer drug priced at approximately Rs 27,000, while its PTR was merely around Rs 3,000. Justice Mehta lamented the stark contrast, echoing previous concerns about markups potentially reaching ten times or even higher. The court also questioned the separation between essential and non-essential medicines under the DPCO, asking why there couldn't be a uniform rule of 16% without exception. This query pertains to the central issue in the cases before the court: whether medicines and medical devices should be subject to tighter price controls despite their critical importance to patients. Additionally, the bench noted that corporate hospitals sometimes compel patients to purchase medicines from their affiliated pharmacies, with the costs of such treatments ultimately falling on taxpayers when treatment is covered under government schemes like Ayushman Bharat or other public health programs. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Center, acknowledged the issue but stressed that a balanced solution is necessary. He noted that pharmaceutical companies are not directly benefiting from these markups. The petitions, including those by advocate Kishan Chand Jain, highlight the difference between scheduled and non-scheduled medicines. Scheduled medicines, comprising a smaller portion of the market, face ceiling prices, while non-scheduled formulations, accounting for around 80% or more by number and value, allow manufacturers more freedom to set initial MRP, mainly constrained by an annual increase limit of 10%. The petitioners argue that this system perpetuates steep markups that strain patients financially, some of whom may sell assets or jewelry to afford treatment. They also contend that higher prices drain public funds through reimbursements. The court has scheduled a follow-up hearing on October 12 to continue assessing the matter. The court previously used strong language to critique pricing disparities, labeling them as \"broad daylight dacoity,\" \"extortion,\" and \"absolute rampage and carnage\" against patients, criticizing regulatory inaction. The latest hearing has intensified the debate over whether a uniform 16% limit above the PTR could mitigate these disparities, even as the Center maintains that any solution must strike a balance among various interests.",
  "summary": "New Delhi, September 29, 2026: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre over steep markups on cancer drugs and other medicines, asking why there could not be a uniform rule limiting the maximum retail price (MRP) to 16% above the price to the retailer (PTR). A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing petitions concerning the regulation of medicine prices, generic…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}