The Supreme Court has disposed of a PIL seeking nationwide measures against counterfeit cancer drugs and other life-saving medicines, directing that the petition be forwarded to the Union authorities for consideration while expressly declining to examine the allegations or requested reliefs on merits.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking stronger measures against the manufacture and sale of fake cancer drugs and other life-saving medicines, including treatment of such activity within the legal framework governing organised crime.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana disposed of the petition after noting that the petitioner had not first approached the concerned government authorities with his proposals.
The Court nevertheless directed its Registry to forward a copy of the petition to the respondent authorities for consideration. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who filed the PIL, undertook to deposit the required copies of the paper book within one week.
The Bench made clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether the measures proposed in the petition should be adopted.
PIL alleges organised networks behind counterfeit medicines
The petition raised concerns over the alleged circulation of fake cancer medicines and other drugs used in life-saving treatment. It sought a nationwide mechanism for completing investigations in counterfeit-medicine cases within fixed timelines.
Upadhyay argued that the manufacture, financing and distribution of fake medicines may involve coordinated networks but are not specifically addressed within the organised-crime framework relied upon for other continuing unlawful activities.
He referred to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with organised crime, and contended that a gap existed in the present legal structure because counterfeit-drug operations were not expressly covered in the manner proposed by him.
The petitioner maintained that fake medicines threaten the rights to equality, freedom and life protected by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. These were assertions made in the PIL and were not adjudicated or accepted as findings by the Supreme Court.
Time-bound investigation and confiscation sought
Among the reliefs sought was a system for completing investigations involving spurious or adulterated medicines within a prescribed period.
The petition also sought directions for the timely identification, assessment and confiscation of properties allegedly linked to manufacturers, sellers and financiers of counterfeit medicines. It asked that assets held through family members or other connected persons also be examined where legally traceable to the alleged activity.
Another prayer called for the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure governing searches, seizures and the sampling of suspected adulterated or spurious medicines.
The petitioner further sought a fixed timeline for forensic science laboratory reports in fake-drug cases, arguing that delays in testing and investigation could weaken enforcement and allow dangerous products to remain in circulation.
The petition invoked the seriousness of counterfeit life-saving medicines and claimed that their consequences could not be repaired through ordinary compensation after patients had suffered irreversible harm.
Court asks why authorities were not approached first
During the hearing, Upadhyay submitted that stringent provisions already existed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, but argued that the organised manufacture and sale of fake medicines required an additional legal and investigative response.
He made a broad claim regarding the number of deaths allegedly caused by counterfeit drugs while comparing the issue with deaths caused by terrorism. Justice Bagchi responded by drawing attention to the even larger number of deaths caused by motor accidents.
The Bench ultimately focused on the procedural issue that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court without first placing his proposed measures before the authorities responsible for drug regulation, criminal law and public health policy.
The Court observed that the PIL sought several different forms of executive and policy action. In such circumstances, it considered it appropriate for the respondent authorities to examine the representation before any question of judicial intervention arose.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams States For Failing To Ensure Affordable Drugs And Medical Equipment
No ruling on merits or direction to amend law
The disposal of the PIL does not amount to a judicial finding that counterfeit-drug manufacture constitutes organised crime under Section 111 of the BNS. Nor has the Supreme Court directed Parliament or the Union Government to amend the criminal law.
The direction is limited to forwarding the petition to the respondent authorities so that its proposals may be considered administratively.
Any decision on whether existing legislation is sufficient, whether additional offences or investigative powers are required, and how searches, sampling, forensic testing and asset confiscation should be standardised remains with the competent authorities at this stage.
The authorities’ consideration of the petition may determine whether the issues raised lead to policy changes, enhanced enforcement measures or a formal response explaining why the existing statutory framework is considered adequate.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 373 of 2026
Coram: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Hearing Date: September 28, 2026
Status: Petition disposed of without consideration on merits; Registry directed to forward it to the respondent authorities for consideration