The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed four petitions of former visiting scholars aspiring to become assistant professors.

The division bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Prakash Shrivastava made it clear in their order that the petitioners had made a mistake while filling the form, hence they cannot be given the benefit of extra points.

Advocates Sandeep Singh Baghel, Ved Prakash Nema and Devendra Prajapati appeared on behalf of petitioners Kunwar Bharat Singh, Dr. Avadhesh Kumar, Vikas Aggarwal and Pundarik Sharma. the other hand, Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared for the state government and Advocate Anshul Tiwari for Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC).

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission had advertised the post of Assistant Professor, which clarified that applicants who have previously served as visiting scholars under a university or government college, get additional points in the appointment process of Assistant Professor will be given.

The four petitioners have been guest scholars in the past. But the mistake was made on their part that while filling the form, they wrote no in the relevant column. This fact was underlined by the MPPSC.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs Centre, UP to give detailed Covid vaccination programme for state

MPPSC advocate Anshul Tiwari apprised the High Court that the petitioners were also given time to improve the form after filling the form. Despite this, the mistake was not rectified by them. It is clear that if the benefit of additional points is not available, then the petitioners themselves, not the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, are responsible for this, claimed the counsel.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard the arguments presented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central Government in its plea against Vedanta seeking clearance of dues of Rs 3,686 crore in lieu of renewal of the contract for Rajasthan oil block.

Hearing the plea through video conferencing, a divisional bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the matter over the question of law will be heard later.

Mehta submitted,

“I’ll not take it as a by party dispute, as we deal with petroleum products on behalf of people of India. Government Must ensure profit maximisation, Production Sharing Contract is entered in an agreement pertaining to petroleum products. Since natural resources are held on behalf of the people of India, President of India is party 1 to the contract.”

“As per the contract, the contract may be extended under various categories, the contract was coming to end on May 6, 2020 at the end of 25 years. Whereas, petitioner sought extension of 10 years relying upon clause 2.1 of PSC,”

Mehta added.

While putting up the policy regulation Mehta informed the bench,

“According to the policy in case of all extensions government’s share should be 10% more. It was recommended new policy guidelines need to be introduced.”

Whereas, new All India Policy was introduced stating in case of extension of any production sharing, Government’s Share shall be 10% higher, in any year during extended period.

Mehta pointed out that this provision is not applicable to fresh contracts but to existing contracts only. Whereas, the policy will override the provisions of PSC.

Also Read: Delhi HC allows 11 benches, subordinate courts to start physical hearings on alternate days from January 18

However, the bench said that the matter will be heard at a later stage over the question of law and has asked Mehta to submit a list of judgments he is relying upon. The matter is listed for further hearing on January 21.

A parliamentary panel has recommended that these be regulated and untested and unlicensed formulations crowding the market, pushed by misleading advertisements, must be checked 

By Ajith Pillai

Surf TV channels and you will invariably be confronted with numerous ads promising miracle cures. From diabetes, blood pressure, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, epilepsy and kidney stones to infertility and losing or gaining weight, there are persuasive “physicians” from various schools of traditional medicine offering treatments. All you have to do is dial the number flashing on the screen and the magic powder/pill is home-delivered. What’s more—the promise is explicitly driven home that the cure’s USP is that it is “safe and without any side effects because it is made from natural herbs and hence is chemical free”.

How safe or reliable are these promises? Are the formulations being marketed licensed or tested? Towards the end of the last parliament session which concluded in the second week of May, the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare tabled its 95th report on Demands for Grants 2016-17 of the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy). It attracted very little attention in the midst of charged political debates, but raised the following pertinent issues:

• The licensing of drugs which come under traditional medicine category is currently a slow and tardy process, resulting in many unlicensed and untested formulations being sold in the market. Also, drug samples collected by inspectors from the market are far lesser than desired.
• Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, an existing allopathic drug to be sold in a modified form with new claims has to undergo clinical tests before being granted a license. However, the Act does not lay down any specific norms for AYUSH drugs.
• The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1956 has to be amended and given more teeth so that those advertising miracle cures can be prosecuted, their clinics wound up and such treatments banned. Currently, the Act only bans advertising but the law is being violated with impunity as is evident from the number of ads in the media promising quick-fix cures and remedies.

The government is aware of the problem. In fact, Minister for AYUSH, Sripad Naik assured parliament after the PSC report was tabled that loopholes in the law would soon be plugged. “The government is in the process of bringing the amended Drugs and Magic Remedy Act. The Law department has already approved it. Medicines sold through such advertisements while misguiding the public should be stopped,” he said.

In December 2015, Naik had addressed the same concerns when he noted that his ministry was aware of unscrupulous manufacturers of so-called herbal products flooding the market and selling their untested formulations through advertisements that made tall promises. He informed the House that the Kerala government had filed 25 cases against various firms for releasing misleading advertisements to promote their products. The Gujarat government had issued notices to 117 manufacturers while state governments in Delhi and Uttarakhand had initiated similar action against 13 companies and four firms respectively. With the current government’s focus on yoga and traditional cures, such cases will only go up.

While stopping ads and prosecuting those who promise cures should be given priority, another area of concern, according to the PSC, is the certifying and licensing of drugs as well as testing the quality and efficacy of products already in the market. The number of samples collected by drug inspectors is clearly not keeping pace with new AYUSH drugs in the market. While 40,000 samples of allopathic medicines were collected for testing in 2015, the number for AYUSH drugs for three years (2013-2015) was only 11,889. This shows that the inspectors did not show as much keenness to test tradition Indian medicines as they did for allopathic drugs.

The AYUSH Ministry has a Drug Control Cell (DCC) to administer regulatory and quality control provisions for traditional and homoeopathic drugs. The cell functions keeping in mind the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It coordinates with licensing authorities and drug controllers in states to achieve uniform administration of the Act and for providing regulatory guidance and clarifications.

The secretary of AYUSH Ministry, Ajit Sharan, informed the PSC on March 21 that the testing and keeping an eye on quality control had a “major lacuna” because the tests were conducted by agencies of various state governments. “Licensing of new products is with the state licensing authorities. They are very ill-equipped, both technically and infrastructurally, to handle this task. Many states do not have AYUSH Inspectorates. It is the allopathic side which does it (tests) and for them it is of very low priority. It is very easy to convince them about a new drug with new indications.”

A senior official in the AYUSH Ministry told India Legal that what a new AYUSH drug is must be defined. According to him, all that is required for giving a license to a new drug is some proof of its effectiveness and safety. “This is currently done through testimonies of doctors who practice traditional medicine or by showing positive media reports on a remedy. This is taken as proof of efficacy and safety of a formulation.”

Sharan submitted to the PSC that rules relating to new drugs are being framed by the ministry. Under the new regulation, to be implemented soon, unless detailed clinical trials of a new AYUSH drug are conducted to validate its efficacy and safety, the state licensing authority cannot give a license. The new rules, it is hoped, will do away with the arbitrary manner in which drugs are cleared.

Also on the anvil, the PSC has noted in its report, is a proposal to set up a central drug regulator for AYUSH medicines. The idea is to create a “vertical structure” in the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) and having a separate Drug Controller General of AYUSH. This, it is hoped, will regulate the manufacture and sale of traditional formulations.

In fact, the PSC in its report has recommended that “a credible regulatory and certification system” must be put in place and that “manufacturers of all patent and proprietary (traditional) drugs which have been introduced in the market in the last ten years should be required to prove their efficacy and safety through clinical trials over a period of the next five years”.

On the issue of misleading advertisements, the ministry submitted to the PSC that this was due to the ineffectiveness of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1956. The Committee was informed that a new set of rules have been drafted for the effective regulation of content of such advertisements and the rules will be notified as soon as they are vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

While the AYUSH sector needs to be reined in, ministry sources point out the regulators appointed must be given a free hand to crackdown on those who violate norms. As one AYUSH Ministry official put it: “People with high political connections and those associated with influential ashrams and spiritual organizations have jumped into the field, so it is important to ensure that no favoritism is shown in giving clearances.”

If the guidelines drawn up are not strictly and impartially followed, he fears that regulating this sector will not be as effective or credible enough.