The Supreme Court has asked the Centre why there should not be a uniform rule limiting the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of medicines to no more than 16% above the price to the retailer, while hearing petitions on medicine price regulation under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013. The Solicitor General said a solution that balances all interests must be found. The case will next be heard on October 12.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre over the large markups on cancer drugs and other medicines, and asked why there should not be a uniform rule limiting the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to no more than 16% above the price to the retailer (PTR) [Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics and Medical Registration Board and Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing petitions on the regulation of medicine prices, generic prescriptions and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO). The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on October 12, 2026. The remarks were made at the hearing and are not findings or directions, and LawChakra’s account is based on reports of the hearing.
The markup concern
Justice Mehta pointed to what he called a stark disparity, noting that a cancer drug with an MRP of around Rs 27,000 had a price to the retailer of only about Rs 3,000. He said this repeated concerns raised at earlier hearings about markups reaching ten times or more. According to the report of last week’s hearing, the same Bench had described such pricing gaps in very strong terms and criticised regulatory silence on the issue.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams States for Failing to Ensure Affordable Drugs, Medical Equipment
Essential and non-essential medicines
The Bench questioned the distinction the DPCO draws between essential and non-essential medicines. It observed that every medical device and every medicine is covered by the Essential Commodities Act, and asked whether an essential item can be left outside the DPCO. It also pointed out that corporate hospitals often insist that patients buy from their in-house pharmacies, and that the inflated costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers when treatment is covered by government schemes such as Ayushman Bharat or other public health programmes.
Putting its central question to the Centre, the Bench asked, “Why not a uniform criteria of 16% and nothing beyond that?”
The Centre’s response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, acknowledged the issue. He said he was not saying the petitioners were wrong, but that some way of balancing the equities would have to be found, and added that, as he understood it, pharmaceutical companies were not the ones benefiting from the markups.
The petitions
The petitions, including one by advocate Kishan Chand Jain, say that while scheduled medicines, a relatively small part of the market, are subject to ceiling prices, the bulk of non-scheduled formulations, estimated at about 80% or more by number and value, leave manufacturers greater freedom in setting the initial MRP, subject mainly to an annual increase limit of 10%. The petitioners argue that this allows steep markups that burden patients, many of whom sell assets or jewellery to pay for treatment, and drains public funds through reimbursements.
Why it matters
The Court’s question goes to how far medicine prices are regulated. Under the DPCO, ceilings apply mainly to scheduled medicines, and the Bench asked whether a uniform cap on the gap between the retailer price and the MRP could apply across medicines and devices. The 16% figure was put as a question to the Centre and is not a direction.
The Centre has not yet stated its position on such a cap, and the Court has passed no order on it. The matter will be heard again on October 12, and any cap would depend on what the Court decides after hearing the Centre and the other parties.
Case Title: Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics and Medical Registration Board (Erstwhile Medical Council of India) [W.P.(C) No. 794 of 2023] and Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 717 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.