"The FDCs were banned in one go without considering any clinical data. The argument of a safer alternative or safer option is absurd. It is a non-starter. What dosage or combination is safe differs from patient to patient," said advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Pfizer.
The court has decided to continue the stay on this ban as the hearings will continue on Wednesday. According to IMS Health, only six brands of Pfizer have been banned - their sales were as much as Rs 424 crore between February 2015 and February 2016. "The sector as a whole would not want to make or sell unsafe drugs," said Sibal, adding that many of the affected drugs, like Pfizer's Corex cough syrup, have been in the market for 20-30 years.
The government on March 10 banned these 344 drugs as it found no therapeutic reason for their consumption. Moreover, it was found that many of these FDCs posed health hazard to patients. Consequently, more than 100 pharmaceutical companies went to the Delhi High Court against this ban - which decided to stay this ban until it heard all the arguments.
"If state licensing authorities were illegally issuing licences, the government would not have kept quiet till now," Sibal said, responding to the government's argument on Monday that there were no valid licences for making any of the banned FDCs and it was difficult to implement any action at the state level.
After hearing argumentson behalf of the drug companies for about 90 minutes, the court listed thematter for hearing tomorrow.
The high court had yesterday said the government's decision to ban the 344 FDCswas apparently taken as it could not control the state drug licensingauthorities - which granted approval in to various companies for these FDCs.
"It appears thatsince you do not have power to control your state licensing authorities, youare taking this action. It all boils down to this that you have exercised thispower as you do not have power to take action against those operating withoutvalid license from the Drugs Controller General of India (central druglicensing authority). That is what I feel,\" the high court said on Monday.
The court added that there was a \"lacunae\" in the system if stateauthorities were not under the control of DCGI.
You’ve hit your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online
Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app