
Sigachi disaster: The blast must jolt pharma regulators out of their slumber
The blast—which claimed the lives of 44 workers and critically injured 33 more, with eight officially listed as 'missing"—has once again put the spotlight on shortcomings in occupational safety and GMP (good manufacturing practice) compliance in India's pharmaceutical sector.
The industrial accident also exposes the huge gaps in regulatory oversight and enforcement.
That can have disastrous consequences because this not only endangers the lives of the workers, but also the lives of residents living near such plants. Besides, poor-quality medicines and formulations pose a serious threat to patient safety and could damage the reputation of India's $65 billion pharmaceutical market.
The Sigachi disaster
The Sigachi blast is the worst industrial accident in Indian pharma manufacturing in terms of the number of casualties.
The unit had not put up the mandatory 'green board", which is supposed to list potentially hazardous material and processes used in the plant, so that emergency services know what they have to deal with, The Hindu reported on 6 July.
These details are also supposed to be filed with the fire department, which also wasn't done. And clearly no one bothered to even check.
Further, an FIR filed by the family member of a deceased worker claimed that workers had raised concerns about the safety of the equipment—which was allegedly old. Periodic safety inspections of the unit—if they were carried out—should have noted this, if this was indeed the case.
A commission of inquiry has been appointed to investigate the accident. But the point is that poor attention to safety and quality is putting at risk India's claim to be the pharmaceutical capital of the world—it's the world's third-largest pharmaceuticals exporter.
More importantly, the sector—the fifth-largest contributor to the country's manufacturing gross value added—accounts for a fifth of the world's generic formulations output and three-fifths of global vaccine production. This thriving market is now at risk due to repeated cases of India-made drugs failing to pass regulatory quality control.
Chequered track record
In May 2024, India's apex drug control authority, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), put out a list of 50 formulations, used to treat widely prevalent issues ranging from fever to diabetes, which were found to be substandard. That's a pretty routine occurrence.
In May 2025, the CDSCO's alert listed 128 formulations as being not of standard quality, while two more were found to be fake. Mind you, only around 3 % of samples are tested, because the state drug control laboratories are severely underfunded, understaffed, and underequipped.
In fact, overseas regulators, particularly the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) have been far more diligent in inspections and evaluations, although the FDA's actions are confined only to those units that manufacture drugs exported to the US. But that is not an inconsiderable number. India has the largest number of USFDA-approved plants worldwide, excluding the US, at 499. The US has 530 such plants, while Europe has 416.
A June 2025 analysis by CARE Ratings found the same troubling issues, which have dogged Indian pharma manufacturing over the years. According to the report, between 2022 and 2025, 33 warning letters were issued to Indian pharma companies.
The main reasons included failure to maintain quality and purity (24%), lack of data documentation and rigour (21%),, and unsanitary/unhygienic conditions at the facilities. There were also multiple incidents of regulatory non-compliance, including failure to properly test raw material and failure to use globally validated analytical methods.
Perhaps, the most sensational case was of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, which admitted to seven felony counts, including selling adulterated drugs, not reporting that its drugs failed to meet standards, and intentionally lying to the authorities. Ranbaxy, then India's largest generics manufacturer, was forced to pay $500 million in fines and eventually was forced to sell out to a Japanese pharma company.
A national priority
Nearly two decades on, similar incidents are cropping up with alarming regularity, pointing to systemic failures that need to be addressed with urgency. These include a chronically under-resourced regulatory system, lack of adequate infrastructure and technical knowledge among regulators, endemic corruption, and weak enforcement of existing rules and laws.
Part of the problem stems from the industry's fragmented nature. Due to policy and licensing issues, most of India's 10,000-odd pharma manufacturing plants fall in the MSME space. They lack the capital to adequately invest in technology, GMP compliance, and worker training. Most of the workers killed in the Sigachi incident, for instance, were poor migrant workers from Bihar.
India needs to urgently address these systemic issues—particularly in view of China's strides in this sector—if it is not to lose its preeminent place in the global pharma sector. It must be a national priority where both states and the Centre work in tandem to adequately support the regulatory structure—in terms of money, human, and technical resources.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Monitor NDMA levels in antacid Ranitidine: Drugs body CDSCO
NEW DELHI: Drug controllers of all states and UTs have been asked by Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) to direct manufacturers under their jurisdiction to monitor levels of NDMA in the active pharmaceutical ingredient or drug formulation of Ranitidine, a commonly used antacid. NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) is a chemical which has been recognised as a probable carcinogen by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), reports Durgesh Nandan Jha. CDSCO's decision came after reports of NDMA impurity in the medicine. An expert panel was appointed to deliberate on the concern in Dec last year. Sources said the the committee's recommendations were deliberated in a meeting of Drug Technical Advisory Body recently. DTAB recommended that a larger committee be constituted to look into all aspects, including storage conditions of Ranitidine, and also suggested that the Indian Council of Medical Research undertake a study to assess the drug's safety in addition to directing manufacturers to monitor NDMA levels in the drug and, if required, take risk-based measures such as reducing the shelf life.


Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Maker of GLP1 pens scales up for generic debuts
As weight-loss drug sales surge with semaglutide's patent expiration, Gujarat's Shaily Engineering Plastics, an injector pen manufacturer, anticipates significant growth. Its stock has nearly doubled, and the company is doubling its production capacity to 80-85 million pens by fiscal year-end to meet rising domestic and export demands. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: With sales of weight-loss drugs surging and set to go up even more as semaglutide goes off patent early next year, a low-profile manufacturer of injector pens, Gujarat-based Shaily Engineering Plastics , is set to reap a windfall. Its stock has nearly doubled over the past 12 months. Manufacturers of the pen-like devices that make it easy to self-administer metered doses that would otherwise need to be injected with a syringe are the unnoticed beneficiaries of weight-loss drugs becoming is doubling capacity in line with plans of top pharma companies to launch generic versions of GLP1 weight-loss drugs early next year in India and overseas, said a senior company executive. It will be increasing capacity to 80-85 million pens by this fiscal year end from 40-45 million currently to cater to domestic and export demand, Sanjay Shah, chief strategy officer, told ET."We will look at further expansion and ramp up (in FY27). Currently, we are working with multiple players who are looking to launch generic semaglutide in different markets," he to Shah, various estimates suggest global demand for injector pens is likely to reach 500 million per year in the next two-three years and about 2 billion by is leading industry insiders to predict a looming supply crunch for pen leading drugmakers like Sun Pharma , Dr Reddy's, Cipla and Lupin are expected to be a part of the first-day launch wave in several international markets and India as soon as the patent is investing about '125 crore in FY26 on capacity expansion of its IP-led pen platform."We will be expanding (capacity) going forward to cater to the global as well as domestic market," said drugmaker Novo Nordisk 's weight-loss molecule semaglutide, branded Ozempic and Wegovy , will go off patent in March next year, opening up the gates for Indian and overseas drugmakers to launch cheaper generic expect an immediate price reduction of 50% and further by 60-80% over the coming years. This will boost affordability, potentially spurring sales of the drug and consequently, injector the past, shortages of both Eli Lilly's tirzepatide and Novo's semaglutide in the US were largely due to lack of devices and fill-n-finish capacities after demand for the drugs far outstripped supply.


The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'