Delhi High Court: In the present petition filed seeking direction to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory (‘HPL’), Ministry of Ayush (respondent 2) to analyze the prescription/formulation of Krauss and Zimple, as provided for in the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia to enable the Inter-Departmental Committee to give a reasonable conclusion qua the recognition of an alternative system of medicine. Subramonium Prasad*, J., held that Clinical studies were not covered under the purview of the respondent 2 and the stand of the Inter-Departmental Committee that it would not accept the application from an individual does not warrant any interference. It was for the petitioner to get in touch with the other organizations which were trying to make out their case of recognizing Electro Homeopathy as a new/alternate form of medicine.
The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim was completely unfounded and to recognize a new/alternate system of medicine was purely a matter of policy. The courts do not interfere with policy and do not lay down policies.
Background:
In an instant case, the petitioner being a qualified electro-homeopath stated that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (respondent 1) through the Department of Health Research had set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to investigate the viability for recognition of a new/alternate medicine system including Electro Homeopathy.
The petitioner filed RTI application dated 15-02-2013 seeking information from the respondent 1 regarding the date of incorporation of the formulation of Krauss and Zimpel in German Homeopathic pharmacopoeia and whether the department had tried to find out about the efficacy of the medicines produced through those formulations. In response, the respondent 2 stated that HPL never tried to find out about the efficacy of the medicine produced through the formulation of Krauss and Zimpel and stated that the respondent 2 does not undertake analysis or efficacy reports from any private individuals.
On 28-02-2017, a notice was issued by the respondent 1 regarding the mechanism for consideration of proposals for recognition of new/alternative systems of medicine. For the same the petitioner gave a representation for opinion on electro-homeopathy. In reply to which the petitioner was advised to contact one specific doctor, who had forwarded the combined proposal on Electro Homeopathy on behalf of a Joint Body which was a team of Electro Homeopathy Organizations. In the reply it was stated that the petitioner’s representation was not received on time and for that reason it could not be taken up before the Inter-Departmental Committee to consider the proposal on electro-homeopathy that had been received from other bodies. The reply indicates that all the organizations were to submit a joint proposal based on their collective knowledge about the subject and no individual proposal was to be considered.
It was further stated by the petitioner that the Second Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’) recognizes German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia which consists of prescription/formulation of Krauss and Zimpel to manufacture electro homeopathic remedy and as per the Krauss and Zimpel prescriptions, it cannot produce tinctures used in homeopathy medium. The petitioner states that the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory must analyze the prescriptions/formulations of Krauss and Zimpel and send it to the Inter-Departmental Committee which will analyze the proposal for new/alternative systems of medicine and give a reasonable conclusion for the recognition of an alternative system of medicine. For the same the respondent 2 refused to accept the request of the Petitioner to analyze the formulations of Krauss and Zimpel.
Analysis:
The Court after perusal of facts and contentions noted that Rule 3-A(7) of the Drugs Rules, 1945 (‘the Rules’) outlines the functions of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory which was to analyze or test such samples of drugs as may be sent to it under Section 11(2) or Section 25(4) of the Act. Since Electro Homeopathy was not a recognized form of medicine, the analysis of Electro Homeopathy does not fall within the jurisdictional purview of Respondent 2 and they were duty bound to analyze or test such samples of drugs sent to it under Section 11(2) or Section 25(4) of the Act.
The Court opined that the entire claim of the Petitioner was completely unfounded and to recognize a new/alternate system of medicine was purely a matter of policy. The courts do not interfere with policy and do not lay down policies.
The Court while dismissing the petition stated that, as electro-homeopathy still does not come under the purview of medicine, the analysis of the same, would not become the subject matter of the respondent 2 and it would not require any interference. Whereas Inter-Departmental Committee’s stand that they will not accept application from an individual would not need any interference. It was further suggested to the petitioner to get in touch with other organization which were trying to make out their case of recognizing Electro Homeopathy as a new/alternate form of medicine.
[Deepak Sinha v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4757, decided om 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Dhruv Surana and Arya Hardik, Advocates.
For Respondents: Monika Arora, CGSC; Subhrodeep Saha, Jyoti Tiwari and Radhika, Advocates for UoI.