Madras HC Upholds Ban On Multiple Dosage Of 'Diclofenac' To Save Vultures [Read Order]

The Madras High Court has upheld the ban on sale of Diclofenac in multiple dosage packs as it poses a threat to vultures.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar noted that the population of vultures was declining rapidly due to consumption of carcasses of livestock and cattle injected with Diclofenac, a painkiller, within 72 hours before their death.

The Court was hearing Petitions filed by Laborate Pharmaceutical India Ltd. and Alpa Laboratories Ltd., which had challenged the amendment made to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1943 whereby sale of Diclofenac in multiple dosage packs was banned.

They had contended that multiple dose bottles of Diclofenac injection are essential for treatment as an analgesic for various human conditions. They had further alleged that the claim of decline in the population of vultures has not been supported by any official research by the Government.

The Centre, on the other hand, had submitted that there were chances of multiple dose packs, each containing as much as 30 ml of the drug, being diverted for veterinary use on cattle which require administration of 11 to 14 ml at one go.

Since the matter involved technical scrutiny, the Court had constituted a three member expert committee, which had supported the contentions put forth by the Centre. While the Petitioners did attempt to attack the report of the Committee, the Court noted that the Petitioners had failed to make representations before the Committee at various occasions and ruled, " Therefore, the attack of the report of the committee, by the writ petitioners, as a post decisional enquiry, loses steam and writ petitioners not being forthcoming qua queries from committee takes the wind out of the sails of the writ petitioners’ attack on the report. Writ petitioners’ plea before us about the importance of multi dose packs for treatment of human beings also deserves to be negatived as untenable."

Thereafter, observing that the Centre was justified in introducing the amendment, the Court refused to interfere with the Rules.