New Delhi, March 17 – The Delhi High Court issued a notice on Tuesday regarding a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its earlier order directing the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) to examine safety and regulatory concerns regarding the use of certain diabetes drugs for weight loss.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta sought responses from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and Union Health Secretary Punya Salila Srivastava, granting them four weeks to file their replies.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 21.
The contempt plea, filed through advocate Rohit Kumar, alleged that the authorities failed to comply with the Delhi High Court's July 2025 direction requiring them to decide on a representation raising regulatory concerns about the use of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs for weight management and aesthetic treatment.
According to the petition, a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had earlier permitted the petitioner to submit a supplementary representation along with relevant material and directed the competent authority to consider the same in accordance with law, consult experts and stakeholders, including manufacturers, and take a decision within three months of its submission.
Appearing for the petitioner, the counsel submitted that despite clear judicial directions, "no substantive steps" were taken for several months.
It was stated that although a supplementary representation had been filed on July 13, 2025, the authorities failed to act on it within the prescribed three-month period.
The representation, the contempt plea said, highlighted issues, including waivers under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019, alleged gaps in pharmacovigilance safeguards, regulatory inconsistencies, and aggressive marketing practices.
It also added that even after reminders, including an email sent on January 29, 2026, no response was received from the authorities.
Saying that nearly eight months had passed since the submission of the representation, the petitioner contended that the continued inaction amounts to wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court's binding directions.
The petition stated that the order passed on July 2, 2025, imposed a "clear and time-bound obligation" on CDSCO to take a decision within three months, and that "mere internal processing or informal emails saying that the matter is under consideration do not constitute compliance with a binding judicial direction".