Observing that “there should be public interest in politics and not politics in public interest”, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed the State government’s May 2025 policy decision to discontinue PM Jan Aushashi kendras set up on the premises of all taluk government hospitals across the State.
The court has also quashed all the consequential actions initiated by the authorities, including orders issued for closure of existing kendras on government hospital premises.
Pointing out that the issue “revolves around politics in delivery of medicines in the name of public interest”, the court said that the State government has “not shown that continuation of the kendras is illegal or harmful” and hence the government “cannot renege on its prior commitments” on allowing these kendras, which provide medicines 50% to 80% discounts.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing around 24 petitions, filed by Jagadeesh Moger of Bhatkal in Uttara Kannada district and others. The petitioners had questioned the validity of the May 14, 2025, notification issued by the State government withdrawing its 2016 policy decision to allow setting up of Jan Auashadhi kendras in over 200 government hospital premises.
“The intent of supply of free medicine, appears to be an intent only,” the court said, while noticing claim made on behalf of the petitioners that in many government hospitals the patients are administered medicines by procuring them through Jan Auashadhi kendras.
The State government had claimed its present policy is to supply free medicines to patients in all government hospitals either procuring through Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation from Bureau of Pharma PSUs of India (BPPI), or allowing hospital procure medicine from BPPI, which is co-ordinate marketing of the generic drugs through the Jan Aushadhi stores.
The court said that the petitioners, who are allowed to run these kendras for past five to seven years based on the 2016 policy of the State government, do have a legitimate expectation to continue.
Stating that it is the citizen who stands to suffer “in the cross-fire between institutional egos and administrative indecision or excesses of administrative decisions,” judge Nagaprasanna said that “the constitutional courts exist precisely to prevent such collateral damage.”
“Public interest must be the soul of governance, not a slogan to justify abrupt policy reversals,” the court said, while directing the authorities not to interfere with the kendras operated by the petitioners.
