Skip to main content

Clinical trial must be done for our people benefit & not for MNCs: SC

Clinical trials in the country must be for the help of people here and must not be allowed for the benefits of multinational companies, the Supreme Court today said while holding that norms formulated by the Centre are "deficient" to protect the rights of the subjects.

The apex court said no trial of new drugs be allowed till consent of people subjected to trial is recorded in audio/visual medium and permitted the trial for five entities but refused to pass order on 157 drugs which were allowed by the Centre.

"Norms themselves are deficient to ensure that untoward incidents do not take place. You (Centre) should have a balanced approach and you cannot take one-sided view. Regime must be fool-proof. Clinical trials cannot be conducted here must help us and it must not be done for the benefit of others," a bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said.

It ordered that clinical trials for the 157 drugs must be cleared by the technical and apex committees set up by the Centre for this purpose.

The court was hearing PILs, filed by a doctor Anand Rai and NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, alleging large-scale clinical drug trials across the country by multinational pharmaceutical firms using Indian citizens as guinea pigs in those tests.

The bench directed the committees to evaluate the application for clinical trials of drugs and take decisions by assessing risk and benefit aspects and their medical needs.

"In the light of above, it is not possible to pass order regarding 157 drugs. It can be considered only after the reports of the technical and apex committees is submitted," the bench said adding that "With regards to five cases the trial is permitted".

The bench also said the government should appoint a panel of investigators for probing the cases of clinical trials.

"How to ensure that rights of people who are subjected to clinical trial are not jeopardised? What is the mechanism in place to protect the life and avoid serious effects on the subjects"? the bench asked the Centre.

Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra submitted the Centre is committed to putting in place a proper mechanism and law has to be amended for the purpose, which is under consideration.

The court had earlier said clinical trials of untested drugs on humans require certain mandatory standards to be followed and had also directed the government to put in place a mechanism to monitor them.

It had said uncontrolled clinical trial of drugs by multinational companies was creating "havoc" and slammed the Centre for failing to stop the "rackets" which caused deaths.

Observing that the government has slipped into "deep slumber" in addressing this "menace", the court had ordered that all drug trials will be done under the supervision of the Union Health Secretary.

In an affidavit, the Centre had admitted 2,644 people died during clinical trials of 475 new drugs between 2005 to 2012.

"Serious adverse events of deaths during the clinical trials during the said period were 2,644, out of which 80 deaths were found to be attributable to the clinical trials," the affidavit had said.

"Around 11,972 serious adverse events (excluding death) were reported during the period from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2012, out of which 506 events were found to be related to clinical trials," the Centre had said.

The petition had alleged the clinical trials by several pharmaceutical companies were going on indiscriminately in various states.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil