The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a PIL raising the issue of fake drug peddling. However, it directed forwarding of a copy of the petition to the Union for its consideration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, raising the issue of circulation of fake cancer drugs and other life-saving medicines.

Briefly put, the petitioner sought directions for timely completion of investigations in fake medicine cases and a mechanism to tackle the issue under the organized crime legal framework. "Fake medicines constitute a grave threat to the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The precious years, opportunities and lives can never be restored; the injury is accordingly graver than the loss of any material commodity", his plea said.

The reliefs sought included - (i) timebound assessment and confiscation of properties of fake drug manufacturers/sellers/financiers/their family members, (ii) formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure for search, seizure and sampling of adulterated spurious medicines, (iii) timeline for submission of FSL reports in fake drugs cases, etc.

During the hearing, petitioner-Upadhyay urged that despite stringent provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the manufacture and selling of fake drugs is not covered under the legal framework dealing with 'organized crime'. Referring to Section 111 BNS (organized crime), he submitted that there is a vacuum in the law.

"Terrorists kill a maximum of 1000 people in a year. Fake drug manufacturers kill around 1 lakh", Upadhyay argued. In response, Justice Bagchi noted that more people die in motor accidents.

The bench eventually observed that Upadhyay had not approached the concerned authorities with suggestions before filing the petition. Disposing of the petition, the order was dictated thus:

"We, however, find that the petitioner has not approached the respondent authorities before filing the instant writ petition. In such circumstances where different kinds of actions are strictly required to be undertaken by the respondents, we dispose of this writ petition, without expressing anything on merits, with a direction to the registry to forward a copy of the writ petition to the respondent authorities for their consideration. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the requisite copies of the paper book within a week's time."

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl) No. 373/2026