Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition challenging the circular dated 1 October 2026 issued by the Food Safety and Drugs Administration (FDA), mandating hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other healthcare establishments in Karnataka to disclose the “Landing/Base Price” of medicines, medical devices and consumables in bills, the Single Judge Bench of C.M. Poonacha, J., directed that the circular shall not be insisted upon until the next date of hearing and adjourned the matter to 12 November 2026.
In the case at hand, on 1 October 2026, the FDA issued a circular mandating all government, private and trust hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, day-care centres, diagnostic centres and entities in the pharmaceutical supply chain licensed by the FDA, including Carrying and Forwarding Agent (C&F) agents, stockists, distributors, wholesalers and retailers, in Karnataka to disclose the “Landing/Base Price” of all medicines, medical devices and consumables in bills with effect from 1 November 2026.
Aggrieved by the circular, the petitioner-Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association (PHANA) and others approached the High Court, challenging its legality and constitutional validity. They contended that the circular was issued without jurisdiction, was arbitrary and unconstitutional, and was contrary to the statutory framework governing healthcare establishments.
The petitioners contended that the FDA had no statutory authority to regulate hospitals or impose obligations upon them through a circular. They further submitted that the circular sought to derive authority from the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, and the Rules framed thereunder, which had not been adopted by Karnataka under Article 252 of the Constitution. It was also argued that the requirement to disclose the “Landing/Base Price” was not prescribed under any applicable statute or rules, including the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007, and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The petitioners further challenged the FDA’s authority to impose substantive obligations through an executive circular in the absence of any statutory prescription. They contended that the circular violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on business. It was also argued that the circular was vague and unenforceable as it did not define the term “Landing/Base Price”.
Seeking interim relief, the petitioners submitted that implementation of the circular would require healthcare establishments to introduce entirely new billing processes, procure and deploy new software systems, train administrative and billing personnel, and implement the necessary changes across hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and diagnostic centres within one month. It was contended that compliance within the prescribed timeline was impractical and would significantly disrupt the functioning of healthcare institutions, warranting immediate intervention by the Court.
The respondents opposed the grant of interim relief, contending that no prejudice would be caused if the relief was declined and that the circular merely required disclosure of the “Landing/Base Price”. The petitioners opposed the submission, contending that the circular was non-est in law, that is, it does not exist in law.
Upon instructions, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the officials concerned were in the process of having a re-look at the impugned circular dated 1 October 2026 and undertook that its implementation would not be insisted upon until the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, the Court granted an interim order directing that the circular to not be insisted upon until the next date of hearing and adjourned the matter to 12 November 2026.
[Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association v. Karnataka Food Safety and Drugs Administration, WP No. 33279 of 2026 (GM – RES), decided on 30-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: The CAM Team representing Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association and others was led by Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri, Partner (Head—Disputes, South India), with Twinkle J Chadwa and Prashasti Bhat, Senior Associates, and Ajay T.K and Prajwal V, Associates.
Biplab Lenin, Partner, Priyam Rajkumar, Principal Associate-Designate and Shriya Pandita, provided strategic inputs on regulatory and industry-specific implications of the Circular.
For the Respondent: Additional Advocate General
