Supreme Court Orders Review of Fake Pharmacists Case in Bihar

The Supreme Court has recently ruled on the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Others, concerning allegations of fake pharmacists operating in government and private medical facilities across Bihar. The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Patna High Court, seeking strict enforcement of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had disposed of the matter in a ‘casual manner’ without thoroughly examining the serious allegations regarding public health concerns.

Background of the Case

The appellant sought relief from the court, arguing that numerous hospitals, medical stores, and dispensaries in Bihar were being operated by unregistered and even fake pharmacists. His PIL requested that:

Only registered pharmacists be allowed to dispense medicine.
The Bihar State Pharmacy Council be investigated for allegedly issuing fake registrations to ineligible persons.
The Bihar government implement the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, and create new pharmacist positions to ensure compliance.
The government establish an Enquiry Committee under Section 45(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, to investigate the functioning of the Bihar State Pharmacy Council.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Mukesh Kumar)

The petitioner alleged:

That unqualified individuals, such as clerks, auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs), and staff nurses, were performing duties that legally required a registered pharmacist.
The Bihar government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council had failed to take corrective measures, thereby endangering public health.
By allowing non-pharmacists to dispense medicines, the government was violating the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.
The Pharmacy Council was involved in fraudulent activities, granting registrations to fake pharmacists.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Bihar & Bihar State Pharmacy Council)

The respondents countered:

A fact-finding committee had already been constituted, and a report had been forwarded to the Bihar government.
Any specific complaints about fake pharmacists should be raised individually and not through a general PIL.
The High Court’s direction allowing the petitioner to bring specific cases before the authorities was sufficient.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about the issue, stating:

“The manner in which the High Court disposed of the public interest litigation, without addressing the serious grievances affecting the health and life of citizens, is disapproved.”

The Court emphasized that the State and the Pharmacy Council cannot be allowed to jeopardize public health by neglecting their legal duties.

Judgment Outcome

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to:

Obtain a status report from the Bihar government and Bihar State Pharmacy Council regarding:

The number of hospitals, medical stores, and dispensaries operating with fake pharmacists or without any registered pharmacist.
The actions taken based on the fact-finding committee’s report.
The number of fake pharmacists registered in the state.
The implementation status of the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.

Take up the case within four weeks and ensure a thorough examination of the allegations.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The judgment reinforces that public health concerns cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously by state authorities.
The Supreme Court has placed the onus on the Bihar High Court to ensure that the Pharmacy Act is properly enforced across the state.
The ruling sets a precedent for stronger judicial scrutiny in cases involving healthcare malpractice.
It highlights the importance of regulating pharmaceutical practices to prevent life-threatening consequences.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the critical role of pharmacists in healthcare and the need for strict enforcement of regulations to prevent fake practitioners from endangering lives. The case is now back in the hands of the Patna High Court, with clear instructions to ensure that only qualified pharmacists handle medications in Bihar’s healthcare facilities.

Petitioner Name: Mukesh Kumar.
Respondent Name: State of Bihar & Others.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 28-11-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: mukesh-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-&-oth-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-11-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by M.M. Sundresh
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category