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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...