{
  "id": 16804906,
  "title": "Cannot let pharma industry ‘run amok’ in name of free market: SC",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/27/cannot-let-pharma-industry-run-amok-in-name-of-free-market-sc",
  "topic": "finance",
  "section": "Finance & Markets",
  "published": "2026-10-27T21:21:54.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Times of India",
    "slug": "times-of-india",
    "url": "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-cannot-let-pharma-industry-run-amok-in-name-of-free-market/articleshow/135245670.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Supreme Court has cautioned that the pharmaceutical industry should not be permitted to \"run amok\" with regard to the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines, which can sometimes exceed 1,000% of the retailer's selling price. Expressing concern for the suffering of common citizens, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the Centre to justify the high MRP and the beneficiaries of the policy. The court reserved its order on the plea to place all non-patented medicines and medical consumables under the price control mechanism used for scheduled drugs.\n\nAdditional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati faced intense questioning from the bench as she attempted to defend the government's stance. Bhati argued that the government was aware of the issue and had recently decided to cap the price of anti-cancer drugs; however, the court maintained that the government only acted when confronted with harsh observations from the bench. She also noted that the policy was meant to benefit corporations, not patients, and criticized the expectation that drug price control orders would ultimately benefit citizens.\n\nBhati claimed that medicine prices in India are among the lowest globally due to the free market and questioned the government's ability to control the entire pharma market. The bench, however, urged the solicitor general to demonstrate their awareness and commitment to solving the problem, asking why the entire system appears to favor a select few. The court questioned the justification for the disparity in prices and whether commerce should be prioritized over citizens' lives.",
  "summary": null,
  "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."
}