SHC rejects pharma firm's pleas seeking hike in drug prices

Business Recorder

10 hours ago

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court dismissed two constitutional petitions filed by a leading pharmaceutical company, which requested for the increase of the Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) of certain drugs up to 10 percent instead of 7 percent annually, approved by the DRAP.
The verdict, delivered by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Justice Mohammad Abdur Rahman, had the core of the legal dispute originated from a pricing of three commonly used medicines including Brufen (tablet) 200mg, Brufen Suspension 120ml, and Thyronorm (Tablet) 125 mcg.
Abbott sought an annual MPR increase of up to 10 percent for the fiscal year 2023-24. The company's argument hinged on the historical categorization of these medicines as 'lower priced drugs' under Rule 10 of the Drug Pricing Policy, which traditionally entitled them to a CPI-linked increase of up to 10 percent. Abbott asserted that it had submitted the required calculations to DRAP on July 1, 2024, and that the authority's failure to issue a decision within the stipulated 30 days should, under Rule 7(2)(ii) of the policy, result in their self-determined revised prices being deemed approved and officially notified.
DRAP, represented by the Assistant Attorney General for the Federation of Pakistan, contested this position. The regulatory body asserted that the MRPs of these specific medicines had, over successive years of CPI-linked adjustments, gradually escalated and now surpassed the maximum thresholds prescribed for 'lower priced drugs' under Rule 10(1) of the policy. Consequently, DRAP had reclassified them as 'other drugs,' thereby capping their permissible annual increase at 7 percent instead of the 10 percent sought by Abbott.
This reclassification and DRAP's subsequent decision were upheld by its Appellate Board, compelling Abbott Laboratories to seek judicial intervention through the constitutional petitions, specifically challenging DRAP's order dated March 12, 2025, and previous orders from November 7, 2024, as 'illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, malafide, and of no legal effect.'
The High Court, in its detailed judgment, rejected Abbott's argument for 'deemed notification' or 'deemed approval.' The court clarified that rules allow for the deemed issuance of revised MRPs only if the submitted calculations are 'in conformity with' and represent 'correct calculations' under the policy. Since Abbott's claim was predicated on categorizing the medicines as 'lower priced drugs' despite their MRPs having already crossed the officially notified thresholds, the court held that Abbott's calculations were not policy-compliant.
Addressing Abbott's contention that the same medicines were recognized as 'lower priced drugs' in the preceding year despite exceeding the threshold, the court stated that even if such a regulatory oversight occurred previously, it could not justify repeating the error. The court underlined the legal maxim that 'two wrongs do not make a right,' rejecting the notion that a past administrative lapse could serve as a binding precedent or justification for current policy violations.
The court also drew attention to a crucial procedural lapse by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination. The judgment noted that under Rule 10(2) of the Drug Pricing Policy, the Ministry is legally obligated to revise the thresholds for lower-priced drugs annually in accordance with CPI changes. This statutory requirement, the court observed, had not been fulfilled, thereby indirectly contributing to pricing, however, because Abbott Laboratories had not directly challenged this specific omission in its petitions, the court refrained from issuing a definitive order on this matter due to jurisdictional limitations.
Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that the issue 'warrants attention' and granted Abbott Laboratories the liberty to pursue this concern independently before the Ministry or any other competent legal forum. The court directed that any such representation filed by Abbott in this regard must be decided upon by the respondent within 60 days.
The Sindh High Court found no merit in Abbott Laboratories' plea for a 10 percent price increase. It upheld the decisions of DRAP and its Appellate Board as 'legally correct,' given the undisputed fact that as of July 1, 2024, the MRPs of the disputed medicines had indeed exceeded the thresholds specified for lower-priced drugs, thereby disqualifying them from such categorization.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025