Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Contempt Petition Regarding Diabetes Drugs

The Delhi High Court has taken action on a contempt petition alleging that the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation failed to comply with its previous order regarding the regulation of diabetes medications used for weight loss. The court has requested responses from key health officials and scheduled a follow-up hearing. The petition highlights concerns over regulatory compliance and the lack of action on a supplementary representation submitted by the petitioner. This case raises significant questions about the oversight of diabetes drugs and their safety for weight management. Stay tuned for further developments.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 18, 2026, 12:40 IST

Contempt Petition Filed Over Diabetes Drug Regulations

New Delhi, March 17: On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court issued a notice concerning a contempt petition that claims non-compliance with a previous order. This order mandated the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) to investigate safety and regulatory issues related to specific diabetes medications being used for weight loss.

A single-judge bench led by Justice Sachin Datta has requested responses from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and Union Health Secretary Punya Salila Srivastava, allowing them four weeks to respond.

The case is scheduled for further proceedings on May 21.

The contempt petition, submitted by advocate Rohit Kumar, alleges that the authorities did not adhere to the Delhi High Court's directive from July 2025, which required them to address concerns regarding the use of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs for weight management and cosmetic purposes.

According to the petition, a bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had previously allowed the petitioner to file a supplementary representation along with pertinent materials. They instructed the relevant authority to review this submission in accordance with the law, consult with experts and stakeholders, including manufacturers, and reach a decision within three months of the submission date.

The petitioner's counsel argued that despite explicit judicial instructions, "no significant actions" were taken for several months.

It was noted that although a supplementary representation was submitted on July 13, 2025, the authorities did not act on it within the stipulated three-month timeframe.

The representation raised concerns such as the exemption from India-specific clinical trials under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019, alleged deficiencies in pharmacovigilance measures, regulatory inconsistencies, and aggressive marketing tactics.

Furthermore, the petition stated that even after follow-up reminders, including an email sent on January 29, 2026, there was no response from the authorities.

The petitioner asserted that nearly eight months had elapsed since the representation was submitted, claiming that the ongoing inaction represents willful disobedience of the Delhi High Court's binding orders.

The petition emphasized that the order issued on July 2, 2025, imposed a "clear and time-bound obligation" on the CDSCO to make a decision within three months, and that "merely internal processing or informal communications indicating that the matter is under review do not fulfill compliance with a binding judicial directive."