Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Sunday, 20 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-12-15 disposed

Union of India and Anr vs Pfizer Limited and Ors

Bench: 2 — R.F. Nariman

In Brief

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Central Government must consult the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) before banning drugs under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Delhi High Court had held such consultation mandatory; the Madras and Karnataka High Courts disagreed. The Supreme Court held that Section 26A does not mandate DTAB consultation—Parliament deliberately omitted this requirement, evident from other sections expressly requiring it. The Central Government's action under Section 26A is valid if based on expert advice and relevant material showing the drug poses risks, lacks therapeutic value, or contains unjustified ingredients. On the case's peculiar facts involving 344 banned Fixed Dose Combinations, the Court directed the DTAB to re-examine them and submit a report within six months, directing fresh notifications thereafter."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Administrative Law Pharmaceutical Regulation Drug Control Public Health Statutory Interpretation

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login