Problem is weak drug regulation, CCTV is no cure

Why in the News

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has begun a process to allow prescription drugs to be sold only under CCTV surveillance across the country by early 2027. The camera promises an audit trail against misuse, but it also records sensitive health choices without fixing weak enforcement of existing rules.

What is the CCTV proposal meant to achieve?

1. What it is: Every pharmacy sale of a prescription drug would be filmed. It works like an aircraft’s black box, keeping a record that can be checked later.
2. What the camera shows: Footage can establish whether a prescription was presented, whether a medicine was handed over and when the sale took place.
3. Help for inspectors: Drug inspectors could use it to probe pharmacies that repeatedly sell prescription medicines without a prescription.
4. Audit trail for risky drugs: For Schedule H1 and Schedule X medicines (tightly controlled drugs such as newer antibiotics and narcotics), a stronger record could prevent diversion to illegal use.
5. The takeaway: A simple technology is meant to make enforcement transparent and accountable, but it records every buyer to catch a few sellers.

What are Schedules H, H1 and X?

1. Schedule H: Lists drugs that may be sold only against a registered medical practitioner’s prescription.
2. Schedule H1: Places tighter controls on the sale of certain antibiotics.
3. Schedule X: Covers narcotic and psychotropic drugs, with stricter record keeping on every sale.

Why is a camera a weak regulatory tool?

1. Cannot verify prescriptions: A camera shows a piece of paper crossing the counter. It cannot tell whether the prescription is genuine.
2. Blanket coverage: Buyers of an antibiotic, an antihypertensive (blood pressure drug) or an anti-diabetic medicine are not high-risk merely because a prescription is required.
3. Mismatch with the aim: Filming every prescription sale overshoots the high-risk target, documenting transactions without solving the regulatory problem.

What privacy risks does it create?

1. Sensitive purchases on record: A camera can capture someone buying an antidepressant, an HIV medicine, a fertility drug, an abortion pill, cancer treatment or psychiatric drugs.
2. Health profile from footage: A face, a pharmacy, a time and a medicine together reveal a person’s private life. Linked to other databases or facial recognition, three months of footage maps health behaviour.
3. Unanswered access questions: It is unclear whether inspectors, police or other departments can obtain footage or reuse it. Citizens cannot learn whether their footage was accessed.

What must the government prove first?

1. Constitutional test: The Supreme Court’s privacy rulings require any restriction of a fundamental right to meet legality, necessity and proportionality.
2. Least intrusive means: The government must show that blanket surveillance is necessary and that a less intrusive method would not work equally well.
3. Existing regime: India already has prescription rules, registers, licensing conditions, inspections and controls on Schedules H, H1 and X. The first question is whether regulators use them against violators.
4. Data is not regulation: Collecting more footage does not improve enforcement. It also leaves unanswered who oversees the people holding the footage.

Challenges

1. Thin inspection capacity: State drug regulators lack enough inspectors, so existing rules go unenforced. Eg. antibiotics sold over the counter.
2. No access or retention limits: The proposal states no rules on who may view footage or how long it is kept.
3. Cost for small chemists: Rural and small pharmacies must bear camera and storage costs.
4. Function creep: Footage gathered for drug control can be reused for policing or profiling.

Way Forward

1. Targeted monitoring: The Health Ministry should limit recording to Schedule H1 and X sales instead of every prescription.
2. Fill inspector posts: States should recruit drug inspectors and act against repeat violators.
3. Access rules first: The Ministry should notify who may access footage, for what purpose and for how long, before rollout.
4. Verifiable prescriptions: Digital prescriptions can confirm genuineness.

Conclusion

The proposal treats a gap in enforcement as a gap in data. Whether the Health Ministry sets out access limits and a proportionality case before rollout will decide if the plan survives privacy scrutiny.

Drug Regulation in India

1. Parent law: The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 governs the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs. The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 set drug classification, storage and labelling.
2. Central regulator: The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), headed by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), approves new drugs and regulates clinical trials.
3. State regulators: State Drug Regulatory Authorities license manufacture and sale, inspect premises and act against spurious drugs.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] X’ was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term ‘law’ as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. ‘X’ explained that the meaning of the term ‘law’ in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. ‘Y’ pointed out that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which ‘X’ was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below: (a) X is correct in the interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom (b) The view of Y that ‘law’ included custom is not correct (c) The views of both X and Y are correct (d) The view of only Y is correct Answer: D”