Public health regulation prevails over blanket judicial bans where drug safety demands expert executive decision-making.

In a public interest petition on harmful and irrational medicines, the Court declined to order a blanket ban because technical issues of therapeutic value, safety, pricing, manufacture, and enforcement were for the executive to decide on expert advice. It recognised the State's constitutional duty to protect public health and eliminate injurious drugs, and held that detailed drug policy should not be made by the Court on a writ record. The Court nevertheless issued broad directions for stronger enforcement, central coordination, regional laboratories, proper representation on statutory boards, and prompt consideration of objections to specific medicines by the competent expert body.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a public interest petition concerning harmful and irrational drugs, the Court should order a blanket ban on specified medicines and grant sweeping regulatory relief, and what constitutional and administrative directions were warranted for protection of public health.

Analysis: The petition raised matters of great public importance, but the subject involved highly technical questions relating to therapeutic value, safety, drug policy, pricing, manufacture, and enforcement, which were not suitable for decisive adjudication on the basis of the writ record. The Court held that while the State has a primary constitutional duty under the right to life and the Directive Principles to protect health and eliminate injurious drugs, the framing of detailed drug policy and the determination of which preparations should be withdrawn are matters for the executive acting on expert advice. At the same time, the Court emphasised the need for effective enforcement, stronger regulation, central coordination, adequate representation on statutory boards, regional laboratories, and timely consideration of objections to specific medicines by the appropriate expert body.

Conclusion: A blanket judicial ban on the challenged medicines was declined, but the petition succeeded to the extent that the Court issued broad public-health and regulatory directions and called for expeditious executive action.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters involving technical drug safety and public health policy, the Court will not substitute itself for the expert executive, but may issue constitutional directions to ensure effective enforcement of the State's duty to protect public health.

---