The Delhi High Court issued notice on a contempt of court petition alleging that the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation failed to comply with a prior court directive to examine concerns regarding the misuse of certain diabetes drugs, including Ozempic, for weight loss purposes. The Court directed the concerned authorities, including the Drugs Controller General of India and the Union government, to file their responses within a stipulated period and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
The contempt petition arose from earlier proceedings initiated through a public interest litigation that highlighted the increasing off-label use of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs such as Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Victoza. These drugs, originally developed for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, have seen a surge in demand for their secondary effect of weight loss. The petitioner had raised concerns that these medications were being widely promoted and used as quick solutions for weight reduction, including by gyms and wellness clinics.
It was submitted that in several instances, these drugs were being accessed without proper medical prescriptions and that there was insufficient clinical data specific to their use for weight loss in the Indian context. The petitioner warned that the unregulated use of such medications could lead to serious health risks, including pancreatitis, thyroid cancer, cardiovascular complications, and neurological issues.
During the earlier proceedings, the High Court had expressed concern over the unregulated availability of such drugs and had observed that medicines with potentially serious consequences should not be freely accessible without appropriate prescription and supervision. Instead of issuing immediate regulatory directions, the Court had adopted a measured approach by directing the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation to examine the issue, consult relevant stakeholders including manufacturers, and take a reasoned decision within a specified time frame.
The petitioner later submitted a supplementary representation to the authorities, along with supporting material, in compliance with the earlier directions of the Court. However, it was alleged that no formal or substantive decision had been taken by the regulatory authority within the prescribed period. According to the petitioner, only informal communications were received indicating that the matter remained under consideration, and subsequent reminders did not result in any concrete outcome.
The contempt petition was therefore filed on the ground that the failure to take a decision within the stipulated time amounted to non-compliance with the Court’s order. It was argued that despite the passage of several months since the initial direction, no effective steps had been taken by the authority to address the issue or provide a reasoned response.
During the hearing of the contempt petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the authorities had not fulfilled the obligations imposed by the Court. It was pointed out that the directive required a decision to be made within a specific period, and the absence of such a decision indicated a failure to comply with the judicial order.
The Court, while considering these submissions, observed that the requirement placed upon the authority was to examine the representation and arrive at a decision. It noted that the matter involved regulatory oversight and public health considerations, and that compliance with its earlier directions was necessary.
In response to the allegations, it was indicated that some communication had been made by the authority, stating that the issue was under consideration. However, the petitioner contended that such communication did not satisfy the requirement of taking a reasoned decision as directed by the Court.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court issued notice on the contempt petition and directed the respondents to file their replies within a specified period. The matter was listed for further hearing, indicating that the Court would examine whether there had been compliance with its earlier order and whether any further directions were required.
The case reflects ongoing concerns regarding the regulation and use of certain pharmaceutical products for purposes beyond their approved indications. The earlier proceedings had already highlighted the risks associated with unregulated access and use of such drugs, and the current contempt petition focuses on the alleged failure of the regulatory authority to act within the framework laid down by the Court.
The Court’s decision to issue notice signifies that it found sufficient grounds to examine the allegations of non-compliance. The proceedings will now determine whether the authority has fulfilled its obligations or whether further judicial intervention is necessary to ensure adherence to the earlier directions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.