Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, filed a public interest litigation before the Patna High Court seeking directions to ensure that only registered pharmacists compound, prepare, mix, or dispense medicines in government hospitals, alleging that unregistered persons such as clerks, ANMs, and staff nurses were performing pharmacist duties. The PIL also sought implementation of the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, creation of posts under those regulations, and an inquiry into the functioning of the Bihar State Pharmacy Council for allegedly granting fake registrations. The High Court disposed of the writ petition in a casual manner, noting that a fact-finding committee had been constituted and its report forwarded to the State Government, and directed the appellant to individually bring any illegality to the attention of the Council or State. The Supreme Court, on appeal, found that the High Court had failed to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed that serious allegations regarding fake pharmacists and hospitals running without registered pharmacists directly impacted public health, and the High Court ought to have called for detailed reports from the State Government and the Pharmacy Council. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to call for reports on: (i) the number of government hospitals, medical stores, and private hospitals run by fake pharmacists or without registered pharmacists; (ii) action taken on the fact-finding committee report; (iii) existence of fake pharmacists; (iv) action taken against fake pharmacists; and (v) compliance with the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 in Bihar. The High Court was directed to take up the matter within four weeks, bearing in mind public interest and citizen health.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Duty of High Court - The High Court disposed of a PIL in a casual manner without calling for status reports on allegations of fake pharmacists and hospitals running without registered pharmacists, despite serious allegations affecting public health. Held that the High Court failed to exercise its powers under Article 226 and the matter required detailed inquiry. (Paras 3-5) B) Pharmacy Law - Fake Pharmacists - Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 - Duty of State and Pharmacy Council - The State Government and Pharmacy Council are duty-bound to ensure that hospitals and medical stores are run only by registered pharmacists. Running hospitals with fake pharmacists or without any pharmacist affects the health of citizens. Held that the High Court must call for reports on the number of hospitals/medical stores run by fake pharmacists or without registered pharmacists, action taken on fact-finding committee reports, and compliance with the 2015 Regulations. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in disposing of a public interest litigation concerning fake pharmacists and non-compliance with the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 without calling for detailed reports from the State Government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to call for detailed reports from the State of Bihar and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on specific issues and to take up the writ petition within four weeks.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Pharmacy Act 1948
- Pharmacy Practice Regulations 2015
- Article 226 Constitution of India
- Duty of State and Pharmacy Council
- Health of Citizens
