The Islamabad High Court (IHC) is examining the legality of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan’s (DRAP) enforcement of maximum retail prices (MRP) on products following a petition filed by a pharmaceutical company.
The company, through its counsel Advocate Muhammad Zeeshan Akhtar, has challenged DRAP’s decision to apply the pricing framework for Povidone-Iodine 10% solution to Pyodine Surgical Scrub Solution 7.5% (60ml), arguing that the two formulations differ in concentration, composition and intended therapeutic use.
In a constitutional petition, Brookes Pharmaceuticals has challenged an explanation letter and subsequent measures, including the seizure of its stock and a restriction on the product’s disposal.
The petitioner has questioned whether a product can be subjected to an existing price-control mechanism solely because it contains the same active ingredient as another formulation listed in the National Essential Medicines List (NEML). It has also disputed the applicability of the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, to the product in question.
The petition further challenges DRAP’s authority to seize pharmaceutical stock and prohibit its disposal without establishing an adequate legal basis for such measures.
The company maintains that the impugned actions lack lawful authority and adversely affect its business interests, invoking constitutional protections under Articles 4, 10-A and 18.
Taking cognisance of the matter, the IHC observed that the petitioner’s arguments warranted consideration, particularly regarding whether the product falls within the regulatory framework governing the fixation and enforcement of maximum retail prices.
The court has directed DRAP and the other respondents to submit their comments and the relevant record concerning the product’s classification, applicable price, seizure proceedings and the legal basis for continuing the restriction on disposal.
The competent DRAP officer has also been directed to explain the statutory justification for retaining the seized stock and maintaining the restriction pending determination of the alleged violation, including the necessity of continuing these measures.
The court has deferred consideration of interim relief until the respondents’ position is received. Meanwhile, it has ordered that the seized stock be kept under prescribed storage conditions to protect its quality and integrity during the proceedings.
