Delhi administration invokes BNSS to impose CCTV installation, chemists to seek HC for relaxation
The directive followed a resolution of the Narco Coordination Centre (NCORD), South District, in its meeting on July 29, where the Drugs Control Department had advised pharmacies to install CCTV cameras, stating that surveillance was necessary to curb the sale of medicines with dual use without valid prescriptions. Accordingly, pharmacies selling Schedule H, H1 and X drugs had been directed to install cameras both inside and outside their premises.
"All medical stores, chemists and pharmacies selling Schedule H, H1 and X drugs are hereby directed to install CCTV cameras inside and outside their shops… In case of non-compliance, appropriate legal action shall be initiated against the defaulter in accordance with law," the order copy read.
The move has, however, triggered unease among chemists who said the decision will be challenged in court. The Retail Distribution Chemist Alliance (RDCA), which represents shop owners across the city, has called the order arbitrary and said it infringes on the privacy of patients.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
21 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi administration invokes BNSS to impose CCTV installation, chemists to seek HC for relaxation
NEW DELHI: A month after advising pharmacies to install CCTV cameras inside shops to check the sale of addictive drugs, the Delhi administration has made the measure mandatory. The order warns that non-compliance will invite legal action under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The directive followed a resolution of the Narco Coordination Centre (NCORD), South District, in its meeting on July 29, where the Drugs Control Department had advised pharmacies to install CCTV cameras, stating that surveillance was necessary to curb the sale of medicines with dual use without valid prescriptions. Accordingly, pharmacies selling Schedule H, H1 and X drugs had been directed to install cameras both inside and outside their premises. "All medical stores, chemists and pharmacies selling Schedule H, H1 and X drugs are hereby directed to install CCTV cameras inside and outside their shops… In case of non-compliance, appropriate legal action shall be initiated against the defaulter in accordance with law," the order copy read. The move has, however, triggered unease among chemists who said the decision will be challenged in court. The Retail Distribution Chemist Alliance (RDCA), which represents shop owners across the city, has called the order arbitrary and said it infringes on the privacy of patients.
News18
a day ago
- News18
Delhi govt directs chemist shops in south district to install CCTV cameras
Agency: New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) The Delhi government has made it mandatory for medical shops selling a few specific categories of medicines in the city's south district to install CCTV cameras on and outside their premises to curb the sale of prescription drugs without authorisation. The August 18 order states the measure was endorsed in a meeting between the Narco Coordination Centre (NCORD) and the south district authorities on July 29. It was decided in the meeting that installing surveillance cameras in medical shops is necessary as a preventive step against the misuse of dual-use medicines. 'In case of non-compliance, appropriate legal action shall be initiated against the defaulter in accordance with law," the order stated. view comments First Published: August 19, 2025, 18:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Bombay HC quashes FIR against HDFC Bank chief Jagdishan in Lilavati Trust case
MUMBAI: In a big relief to HDFC Bank chief executive Sashidhar Jagdishan, which came after many adjournments since early June as four high court judges recused themselves from hearing the case, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by a judicial magistrate to register an FIR against him following a private complaint filed on the behalf of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. The Trust accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from an ex-trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the trust's governance. The bank and Jadishan in turn said the case is fabricated as Mehata and his private company owes money to the bank and he moved the court only after the bank began recovery proceedings. Mehta further accused Jagdishan of interfering in the internal affairs of the trust by misusing his position as the head of HDFC Bank. Setting aside the lower court order for registering an FIR against the head of the second largest bank, justice Shriram Modak noted in his August 5 order (which was uploaded on the court website only on Monday), that the magistrate at the Girgaon court had issued a notice to Jagdishan without verifying the complaint and also the witnesses and even before taking cognizance of the said complaint. The FIR was ordered to be registered on May 29. Following which both Jagdishan and the bank moved the high court early June but could not take up the issue as the first judge assigned the job recused and so did the second judge. Following this Jagdishan moved the supreme court for an urgent hearing on July 2 and on July 4, the a two-judge bench of the apex refused to hear him saying the matter is pending in the HC. But again two more judges recused in the course of July and finally the case was heard on August to accept the trust's contention, as advanced by senior advocate Aabad Ponda that the provisions to section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita justify the magistrate in issuing notice to the accused, before taking cognisance of the complaint, the court said the magistrate should have first verified the complaint pertaining to defamation, before issuing notice to the proposed accused. And that under the existing law, until the verification is recorded, the stage of hearing of the accused will not come. "There is a purpose of recording the verification. It gives an opportunity to the magistrate to ascertain whether to proceed further or not," Justice Modak said granting relief to Jagdishan, the court set aside an order passed by a judicial magistrate issuing notice to him in the private complaint lodged against him by the Lilavati Trust.
