New Delhi: Yesterday, i.e. on Friday 11th March, the honourable Supreme Court of India declined to consider the Public Interest Litigation- PIL which was filed by the Former Ranbaxy Executive and Whistleblower- Dinesh Thakur.
That PIL was filed seeking some directions favouring Drugs and Health Regulations in India and also enforcement of the Safety Standards, Creation of framework for the recalling of unsafe Drugs and also an setting up of an expert panel for examining the faulty drug approvals.
The Plea was presented before the Supreme Court’s Bench headed by the CJI- Chief Justice of India- T. S. Thakur who dismissed the petition as withdraw, that means in short the petition was denied for entertainment. CJI- Thakur while doing so also questioned the locus of the whistleblower. It was further stated by the bench that an “overseas citizen” has to come all the way for challenging the rule. “What is your locus?”, CJI- Thakur says. Also, he asked that to “bring public person affected by the rule”.
Moreover, the petitioner- Dinesh Thakur also posted on his official Twitter handle, that his cases were refused to hear by the Supreme Court of the country on Friday and he was “disappointed”. Also, on reasons for the refusal, he refused to comment, when Reuters contacted him, and said that yet he had not received the order of the court.
It is notable that while in the hearing, the Top Court commented saying that the court is tabled with the serious issues and thus it didn’t have time to take up “academic issues” raised by the public activists for “unnecessary publicity”. Moreover, it was also observed by the Court’s bench that the petitioner has come with the academic issues, when there are people languishing in jails. Further it says that court’s hands are full and it is not going to entertain such issues, unless it is seriously affecting anyone.
Moreover, while deciding so, the bench has also given liberty to the petitioner to take his issues to other forum, and it was stated, after the Counsel- Raju Ramchandran appearing for the petitioner claimed so.
However, as per the counsel- Raju, after the decision was made, he commented that the remarks of the bench against petition were “uncharitable”.
Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan