On November 29, the division bench of the Supreme Court directed the Patna High Court to decide afresh a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against fake pharmacists in Bihar. A bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that the High Court should bear in mind the public interest and health of citizens, and take up the plea for hearing within four weeks.

"Running the hospitals/dispensaries in absence of any registered pharmacist and/or running such hospitals by fake pharmacist and even running the medical stores by fake pharmacist and without even any pharmacist will ultimately affect the health of the citizen. The State Government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council cannot be permitted to play with the health and life of the citizen."

The Supreme Court at the outset stated that the High Court had dealt with the matter "in a most casual manner'"

"The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the public interest litigation – writ petition ventilating the very serious grievances touching the health and life of the citizen is disapproved. The High Court has failed to exercise the powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court disposing of the writ petition is unsustainable."

The High Court was accordingly directed to call for a detailed report from the Bihar government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council, on the following aspects:

• How many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals/medical stores/private hospitals are being run either by fake pharmacist or without registered pharmacist;
• Whether any action is taken by the State Government on the fact-finding committee report submitted by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council which was reported to be forwarded to the State Government;
• Whether there are any fake pharmacists as alleged in the writ petition;
• [If] Any action is taken by the State Government or by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council against such fake pharmacist;
• Whether the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, are being followed in the entire State of Bihar or not.

The appellant moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging a December 2019 order of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court that dismissed his PIL. The petition before the High Court stated that in several government hospitals in Bihar, persons who were not registered pharmacists were selling medicines.

The PIL had, accordingly, sought that the state government be directed to not allow such practises that are in violation of the Pharmacy Act. It also sought a direction to the concerned authorities to follow the Pharmacy Practice Regulations framed by the Pharmacy Council of India for the creation of dedicated pharmacist posts.

Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and ors

Citation: SLP(c) NO. 8799 OF 2020

Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/9124/9124_2020_5_1501_40168_Judgement_29-Nov-2022.pdf