SHC rejects pharma firm's pleas seeking hike in drug prices
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Fuel and food items lift SPI by 0.27%
The Sensitive Price Indicator for week ending July 14 showed an increase of 16.13 per cent compared to the same week last year. PHOTO: FILE Listen to article The Sensitive Price Indicator (SPI) for the week ended June 19, 2025 recorded an increase of 0.27% compared to the previous week, driven by higher prices of key food and energy items, according to data released by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS). Notable weekly increases were seen in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG, up 14.86%), potatoes (3.75%), diesel (3.10%), gur (2.25%), chicken (2.17%), sugar (2.13%), petrol (1.88%), mustard oil (1.12%), powdered milk (0.97%), broken Basmati rice (0.84%), cooked daal (0.68%) and prepared tea (0.39%). Conversely, prices declined for eggs (-9.53%), tomatoes (-5.62%), garlic (-1.03%), pulse gram (-0.35%), 2.5kg vegetable ghee (-0.17%), five-litre cooking oil (-0.03%) and bananas and firewood (-0.01% each). Out of 51 essential items monitored across 50 markets in 17 cities, prices of 23 items rose, eight fell and 20 remained unchanged. On a year-on-year (YoY) basis, the SPI showed a decrease of 2.06%, with major drops in prices of onions (-63.22%), tomatoes (-56.11%), electricity charges for Q1 (-41.63%), garlic (-32.58%), pulse mash (-19.09%) and potatoes (-17.97%). However, significant annual increases were recorded in ladies' sandals (+55.62%), pulse moong (+28.90%), sugar (+26.19%), powdered milk (+25.93%) and LPG (+21.77%). The weekly SPI serves as a key tool to gauge short-term price movements in essential commodities and to monitor inflationary trends across the country. The SPI has shown mixed trends in recent weeks, with slight fluctuations influenced by petroleum price revisions and market demand dynamics. After experiencing declines earlier in May, the SPI has been gradually inching upwards since late May, indicating renewed inflationary pressures in both food and energy segments, according to data compiled by Optimus Capital Management. Market observers suggest that the coming weeks may witness further volatility depending on global commodity prices and domestic supply conditions. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) noted that inflation was expected to trend up and stabilise in the target range during FY26. JS Global Research Head Muhammad Waqas Ghani noted that following a 3.5% YoY increase in May 2025, the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI) was expected to stand at 3.1% in June. The base effect is now fading, signalling a return to normalised price trends. This will take the FY25 average to 4.6%, down from the FY24 average of 23.9%. Food inflation for June 2025 is expected to rise 2.8% on a YoY basis, which was 0.97% last year, owing to the dissipation of base effect. Nevertheless, price decreases in certain food items are likely to lead to a month-on-month (MoM) decline in food inflation. Housing, gas and electricity segment is projected to post a 4% YoY decline in June, primarily due to a reduction in electricity tariffs. Core inflation is expected to clock in around 8.5% YoY in June 2025. It is pertinent to note that core inflation, which excludes food and energy items, has remained around 9-10% for the past many months. Urban core inflation was registered at 7.3% in May while rural core inflation was reported at 8.8%.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Punjab budget: $428.54m foreign-funded uplift projects included
LAHORE: Foreign-funded development projects of USD 428.54 million have been included in Punjab budget for FY 2025-26. These projects focused on improving water supply & sanitation, urban development, environment, irrigation, agriculture, physical infrastructure, health, education, skills development and IT & governance. As per budget document, foreign engagement in Punjab's development financing primarily takes two forms: project-based loans and grants (Foreign Project Assistance) and programme-based loans (budgetary support). Loans obtained from multilateral donor agencies through the Federal government for specific foreign-assisted development projects are termed as Foreign Project Assistance. Programme loans, on the other hand, provide direct budgetary support, linked with indicators and results, named Disbursement Linked Indicators and Result Based Lending. The Punjab government, in line with its policy parameters on foreign borrowing, is guided by a preference for concessional financing and longer maturities, ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability. World Bank-funded projects are: Punjab Clean Air Programme, Getting Results: Action, Delivery of Quality Education Services; Punjab Rural Sustainable Water Supply & Sanitation Project (PRSWSSP); Punjab Resilient and Inclusive Agriculture Transformation Project (PRIAT); Punjab Urban Land Systems Enhancement (PULSE) Project; Punjab Human Capital Investment Project; Punjab Resource Improvement and Digital Effectiveness; Punjab Family Planning Programme (PFPP); Punjab Affordable Housing Programme (PAHP); National Health Support Programme; Punjab Tourism for Economic Growth Project (PTEGP); Punjab Cities Programme and Punjab Green Development Programme (PGDP). The ADB-funded projects included: Construction of Jalalpur Irrigation Project; Punjab Intermediate Cities Improvement Investment Programme; Project Readiness Financing (PRF) for Punjab Water Resources Management; Project Readiness Financing for Punjab Urban Development Projects; Improving Workforce Readiness in Punjab Project; Developing Resilient Environment and Advancing Municipal Services (DREAMS) in Punjab; Responsive Ready and Resilient STEM Secondary Education in Punjab. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
SHC rejects pharma firm's pleas seeking hike in drug prices
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
