Mukesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
The appellant filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Patna High Court alleging that unregistered, "fake" persons (including clerks, ANMs and staff nurses) were being allowed to perform the duties of registered pharmacists in Bihar's government hospitals, in violation of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, endangering patients' health. The High Court disposed of the PIL rather casually, simply noting that the Bihar State Pharmacy Council had set up a fact-finding committee and had submitted its report to the government, and telling the appellant to take up individual instances of illegality with the Council or State directly. The appellant challenged this disposal before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to properly exercise its writ jurisdiction given the seriousness of the allegations, which directly touched public health and life. Instead of disposing of the matter on a cursory basis, the High Court ought to have called for a detailed status report from the State and the Pharmacy Council on the extent of the problem. The Court quashed the High Court's order and remanded the case, directing the High Court to take it up afresh within four weeks after calling for specific reports on how many hospitals are being run by unregistered/fake pharmacists, what action has been taken against them, and whether the 2015 Regulations are being followed across the state.
Lesson Learnt
When a public interest litigation raises serious, verifiable allegations affecting public health and safety, courts must actively call for evidence and follow through rather than disposing of the matter with vague, unenforceable observations.