minal Liability For Black Marketing Of Medicines During Pandemics
I. Meaning of Black Marketing of Medicines
Black marketing refers to the illegal sale of essential goods, particularly at exorbitant prices, or hoarding to create artificial scarcity.
During pandemics like COVID-19, black marketing of essential drugs (e.g., Remdesivir, Tocilizumab, Oxygen cylinders) became rampant. This conduct directly endangers public health and violates multiple legal provisions in India.
II. Relevant Statutory Provisions
1. Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Section 3 – Empowers the Central Government to control production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities.
Section 7 – Provides punishment for contravention of orders issued under Section 3.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
Medicines and medical oxygen were declared essential commodities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Section 18(c) – Prohibits manufacture or sale of drugs without a valid license.
Section 27(b)(ii) – Punishes sale or distribution of a drug without a valid license.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Section 406/409 – Criminal breach of trust.
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy.
Section 188 – Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant (used frequently during lockdown violations).
Section 269/270 – Negligent or malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.
4. Disaster Management Act, 2005
Section 51(b) – Punishes refusal to comply with directions of authorities.
Section 54 – Punishes spreading false information leading to panic.
5. Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980
Allows preventive detention of offenders engaged in black marketing of essential goods.
III. Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws
Below are five important cases elaborating the criminal liability for black marketing of medicines during pandemics and similar crises.
1. State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai Jadav (2021 SCC OnLine Guj 5307)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused were caught selling Remdesivir injections in the black market at ten times the MRP. They were charged under the Essential Commodities Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and IPC.
Issue:
Whether selling essential drugs at exorbitant prices during a pandemic constitutes a bailable offence.
Held:
The Gujarat High Court denied bail, holding that the offence had grave social consequences and endangered lives.
The Court observed that such acts are "against humanity" during a crisis.
The Court directed police to treat such cases with utmost seriousness and to trace the supply chain.
Significance:
Established that black marketing of life-saving drugs during emergencies is a heinous, non-bailable offence affecting public welfare.
2. Arun Kumar v. State of Bihar (2021 SCC OnLine Pat 1398)
Facts:
The petitioner was found hoarding oxygen cylinders and selling them at inflated prices. He sought bail claiming he was helping people.
Held:
The Patna High Court rejected bail, holding that hoarding essential medical supplies to exploit public suffering during a pandemic amounts to "moral depravity" and attracts criminal liability under the Essential Commodities Act.
The Court observed that even "helping people for profit" cannot justify illegality.
Principle:
Profit-driven hoarding or overpricing of essential medicines or oxygen during emergencies constitutes criminal black marketing.
3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Jain (2021 SCC OnLine MP 1249)
Facts:
Accused were caught selling Tocilizumab injections—a COVID drug—without license and at inflated rates.
Held:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Essential Commodities Act were both applicable.
It emphasized that unauthorized sale of drugs without license is not only a regulatory violation but a criminal offence with potential intent to endanger public health.
Bail was denied.
Principle:
Sale of medicines without license during pandemic = serious cognizable offence with both regulatory and criminal dimensions.
4. Nipun Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2829)
Facts:
The accused, a businessman, was arrested for black marketing Remdesivir injections. He contended that he was arranging medicines for patients in distress.
Held:
The Delhi High Court emphasized that "humanitarian grounds cannot be used as a shield for profiteering".
Court directed strict enforcement of Essential Commodities Act and Disaster Management Act provisions.
However, due to lack of evidence of sale for profit, bail was granted conditionally.
Principle:
Mere possession or procurement for genuine humanitarian purpose is not punishable, but commercial sale for profit is strictly criminalized.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shailendra Singh (2021 SCC OnLine All 478)
Facts:
The accused was selling Remdesivir and Fabiflu at double MRP. Seized stock revealed he had diverted supplies from authorized distributors.
Held:
Allahabad High Court refused bail, observing that such acts "strike at the root of public health and trust in governance".
The Court directed the State to consider preventive detention under the Prevention of Black Marketing Act, 1980.
It further directed investigation into the supply chain corruption leading to hoarding.
Principle:
Courts treat black marketing during public health emergencies as a crime against society, justifying both punitive and preventive detention.
IV. General Judicial Trends
Courts consistently deny bail in black marketing cases during pandemics.
Acts of hoarding or profiteering are treated as economic offences with grave social impact.
Humanitarian grounds or small-scale sales are examined cautiously, but intent to profit from human distress attracts severe punishment.
V. Punishment Summary
| Law | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Essential Commodities Act, 1955 | Hoarding or black marketing | Up to 7 years + fine |
| Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 | Sale without license | Up to 5 years + fine |
| IPC (Sections 420, 188, 269) | Cheating, disobedience, spreading infection | Up to 7 years |
| Disaster Management Act, 2005 | Disobedience of authority orders | Up to 2 years |
| Prevention of Black Marketing Act, 1980 | Preventive detention | Up to 6 months or extended |
VI. Conclusion
During pandemics, black marketing of medicines is treated as a serious criminal offence involving moral, legal, and social culpability.
Courts have consistently held that profiteering from human suffering violates both statutory law and social conscience.
The judiciary’s approach during COVID-19 has been zero tolerance, ensuring deterrence and accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments