Posted on

TOP 5 HEALTH LAWS AND POLICY UPDATES

Dear Readers, we are happy to share the most interesting legal and policy updates concerning health industry that we read today. We hope you enjoy reading it.

1. India’s central licensing authority, CDSCO has issued an alert on the theft of Lantus® SoloStar® insulin (Batch No. 5F0347B) belonging to Sanofi India during transit in Odisha. As the product requires cold-chain storage at 2–8°C, quality risks exist. CDSCO has issued an advisory to healthcare professionals, patients and regulators.
Source: short-url.org/1qgYH

2. India’s central drug regulator reportedly circulated a proposal from the Ministry of Cooperation that would allow Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) to operate Jan Aushadhi Kendras without registered pharmacists through restricted drug licences, aiming to expand access in underserved areas. The pharmacist community has raised serious concerns, arguing this move could weaken professional standards and patient safety.
Source: short-url.org/1qgYM

3. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has issued draft amendments to the Food Products Standards and Food Additives Regulations, 2011 proposing several changes. Stakeholders may submit objections or suggestions within sixty days from publication of the notification. The authority will consider all representations before finalising the proposed regulatory amendments.
Source: short-url.org/1qgYz

4. A court has granted interim relief in a trademark dispute involving the shape of a toilet cleaner bottle. It held that product shape can receive trademark protection even after design registration expires. Observing strong similarity between competing bottles, the court restrained sale of the allegedly infringing product pending further proceedings.
Source: short-url.org/1qgZN

5. The Madras High Court has stayed a single judge’s observation declaring the term “Vapo” as public property in a trademark dispute concerning vapour-based medicinal rubs. The Division Bench held that the finding requires further examination, while allowing continued use of the contested registered mark pending adjudication of the appeals.
Source: short-url.org/1l8DX

Posted on

TOP 5 HEALTH LAWS AND POLICY UPDATES

Dear Readers, we are happy to share the most interesting legal and policy updates concerning health industry that we read today. We hope you enjoy reading it.

1. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has issued draft amendments to the Food Business Licensing Regulations mandating food manufacturers to keep daily production and raw-material records and to follow FIFO/FEFO storage norms. Retailers and non-manufacturers are exempt. The move strengthens traceability, inventory control, and food safety compliance. Public comments are invited within 30 days of Gazette publication.
Source: h7.cl/1iFOX

2. Madras High Court has ruled that the word “Vapo” is a descriptive and generic term derived from “vapour” and cannot be claimed exclusively by any party, rejecting petitions seeking cancellation of trademarks for “Vaporin” products. The Court held that the rival marks and trade dress are distinct and unlikely to cause consumer confusion.
Source: h7.cl/1nG6S

3. India’s Central Government has amended Uniform Consent Guidelines under the Air and Water Acts to simplify industrial approvals and cut delays. Key changes include consolidated consents covering multiple environmental laws, faster timelines for red-category industries, and Consent to Operate remaining valid until cancelled. Inspections, audits, and cancellation powers remain to ensure environmental compliance.
Source: h7.cl/1iFAP

4. The India–EU free trade agreement is set to eliminate duties on about 90% of European medical devices imported into India, reducing tariffs that earlier went up to 27%. The agreement is expected to lower costs and improve access to advanced technologies, Indian manufacturers are seeking regulatory alignment and mutual recognition to overcome non-tariff barriers.
Source: h7.cl/1iFAU

5. The India–EU Free Trade Agreement is expected to expand opportunities for Indian traditional medicine in Europe. In EU countries where no specific regulations exist, AYUSH practitioners will be allowed to offer services based on their Indian qualifications. The agreement also provides long-term certainty for setting up AYUSH wellness centres and clinics across EU member states.
Source: h7.cl/1iFAX

Posted on

Mandatory Documents to be submitted for import of ayurvedic drugs

INTRODUCTION
In India, the regulatory framework for Ayurvedic drugs has remained unclear, as the forms prescribed under the Drugs Rules, 1945 (“Drugs Rules”) for obtaining an import license are not appropriate for Ayurvedic drugs.
The Madras High Court in the case of M/s Axeon Marketing India v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs has clarified the steps to be followed for the import of Ayurvedic drugs into India.
In this article we have listed the documents required and steps to be followed for the import of ayurvedic drugs into India.

The following are the essential steps to be followed, along with the required documents:

1. Submission of regulatory documents
Despite the absence of specific licensing forms, importers should proceed by compiling a comprehensive documentation to present to Customs authorities and the State Licensing Authority (“SLA”). This should include:
– Copy of invoice
– Packing list which includes the details of contents of each package
– Manufacturer’s test report
– Manufacturing license (from the country of origin)
– Specimen sample
– Label (The label must comply with the labelling requirements given under Rule 161 of the Drugs Rules.)

2. Testing by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization-accredited laboratory (“CDSCO lab”)
It is now mandatory that imported Ayurvedic drugs be tested at a CDSCO lab in India to ensure compliance with Indian safety and quality standards. The imported drug must meet standards equivalent to those applicable to similar Ayurvedic drugs already manufactured and approved in India.
– The importer is required to submit imported drug samples to a CDSCO lab, where testing will be conducted under the supervision of SLA of the state in which the laboratory is located.
– The cost for testing will be borne by the Indian importer
– If a satisfactory report is received from such laboratory, the concerned SLA will issue a certificate confirming that the manufacturing process of the imported drugs is in conformity with the process prescribed for the manufacture of ayurvedic drugs in India.

3. Submission of certificate issues by SLA
– A copy of the certificate issued by the SLA must be submitted to the Customs Department.

4. Receipt of Assistant Drug Controller’s No Objection Certificate (“NOC”)
– This document is issued by the port office of CDSCO.
– The NOC indicates that the consignment meets all applicable regulatory requirements
– Invoice, packing list, manufacture’s test report, manufacturing license, specimen sample, label may be examined before giving NOC by port office.

CONCLUSION
A guidance document governing the import of Ayurvedic drugs already existed, however, it did not mandate testing of the imported drug by a CDSCO lab. After the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, this requirement has now been made compulsory. Therefore, importers must comply with this requirement, along with all other steps outlined above, to obtain import clearance.

Posted on

TOP 5 HEALTH LAWS AND POLICY UPDATES

Dear Readers, we are happy to share the most interesting legal and policy updates concerning health industry that we read today. We hope you enjoy reading it.

1. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Madras High Court, alleging that transgender clinics in Tamil Nadu are engaging in unethical practices. These include the use of the banned two-finger test and violations of established health guidelines. The court has issued notices to the National Medical Council and the Tamil Nadu government, seeking their responses to these serious allegations.
Source: bit.ly/4fCPFnA

2. The Indian subsidiary of a major U.S. pharmaceutical company is under investigation for violating the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) guidelines by sponsoring foreign trips for 30 doctors. The government may take action against the company and the executive who signed the self-declaration of compliance. If proven, the doctors involved could lose their medical licenses and be prohibited from practicing medicine.
Source: bit.ly/409I4s3

3. India’s Allahabad High Court has overturned a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order that had mandated a compensation of ₹93 lakh from a doctor and hospital owner for alleged medical negligence during a C-section procedure in 2005. The High Court identified procedural errors in the NCDRC’s decision-making process, thereby nullifying the earlier order for compensation to be paid by the medical professionals involved.
Source: bit.ly/409s4pQ

4. India’s Karnataka High Court has granted temporary relief to pharmaceutical companies by directing the government to refrain from taking action against pharmaceutical companies producing nutraceuticals in drug-licensed units. This follows a challenge to Schedule M, which restricts the manufacturing of non-drug products in drug-licensed facilities
Source: bit.ly/40bT34c

5. The Jammu and Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (JKMSCL) has ordered an immediate halt to the use of Bupivacaine Hydrochloride in Dextrose Injection USP (0.5%), 5mg/ml, 4ml ampoule, Batch Number AA40222, manufactured by Aishwarya Healthcare Ltd. This action follows a reported Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) associated with the batch, which was manufactured in April 2024 and expires in March 2026. Medical officers have been instructed to cease using the affected batch immediately.
Source: bit.ly/408meFg

Posted on

Madras High Court Greenlights Online Sale of Drugs and Medical Devices in India

online_sale_of_drug_and _medical_devices

Introduction

The Division Bench of Madras High Court in its recent order has confirmed that online pharmacies and online marketplaces of medicines and medical devices can continue to operate under existing law i.e. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.

In doing so, the Court reversed the order passed by a Single Judge Bench of the same Court in 2018, which had effectively ordered e-pharmacies and e-marketplaces to stop business.

In this article, we will discuss the developments leading up to the recent Court order.

Background of 2018 court order banning online sale of medicines

On 17.12.2018, The Single Judge Bench of Madras High Court surprised e-pharmacies and e-marketplaces by ordering that till the Central Government did not publish rules for regulation of e-pharmacies, “the on-line traders are bound not to proceed with their on-line business in drugs and cosmetics.”

The rationale behind such an order was that without any proper framework regulating the online sale of drugs, there may arise chances of potential misuse of health and safety. The Court felt that amendments to the Drugs Rules, 1945 were necessary before allowing the online sale of drugs. The Court also directed the state government to notify the proposed Drugs and Cosmetics Amendment Rules, 2018 in the state Gazette, latest by 31.01.2019, for online sale of drugs within the state.

However, after passing the order, at the request of e-pharmacies and e-marketplaces, the Court decided to defer the implementation of the order until 20.12.2018 so that they could prefer an appeal against the order.

Ad-interim stay of 2018 order

The e-pharmacies and e-marketplaces preferred an appeal against the order of the Single Judge, on 02.01.2019 the Division Bench temporarily stayed the operation of the Single Judge Bench.

The Bench felt that a sudden ban would disrupt access to medication for those who relied on online pharmacies, particularly for home deliveries. However, the Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge Bench on the need for appropriate regulation for the online sale of drugs and directed the Central Government to finalize a framework for the regulation of online sale of drugs.

Reversal of 2018 order

The Division Bench has now passed a final order in the appeal. It has explicitly allowed the online sale of drugs, with a condition that any online sale of drugs must be routed through licensed druggists and chemists only.

In doing so, it has endorsed the lawfulness of operation of e-pharmacies and e-marketplaces, which are currently doing business through dealers and retailers who have a license for sale or distribution of drugs under Drugs Rules, 1945.

The Court decided to dispose of the appeal primarily on the grounds that the Delhi High Court is already hearing a matter with identical issues and the Central government is in the process of preparing a new policy for the online sale of drugs.

Order from Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a batch of writ petitions in which the petitioners have challenged the legality of the online sale of drugs and medical devices. Unlike the Madras High Court, the Delhi High Court has never held that the online sale of medicines is bad in law. The Delhi High Court has always maintained a position that the online sale of medicines and medical devices by licensed retailers is not unlawful. However, the Delhi High Court has time and again expressed concerns that the Central Government is yet to finalize a framework for the regulation of online sale of drugs and medical devices, despite the fact that the draft rules for the regulation of online sale of drugs were published in 2018 for comments and the Central Government has already received comments. The Court has now given the Central Government a last opportunity to put in place a policy framework for online drug sales by July 2024.

Conclusion

The order of the Madras High Court is welcome as it removes the ambiguity that existed in relation to the legality of the online sale of drugs and medical devices. Now, the fate of e-pharmacies and online marketplaces for medicines and medical devices is inextricably linked to the outcome of the petition filed in the Delhi High Court and the decision of the Central Government to introduce (or delay the introduction of) a framework for online sale of drugs and medical devices.