The Orissa High Court has delivered a significant verdict offering relief to doctors, ruling that a physician cannot be held criminally liable for prescribing medication produced by any pharmaceutical company. This protection stands, however, with the crucial exception that the prescribed drug must not be hazardous, of substandard quality or brand, or restricted by the appropriate government authority.

Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, presiding over the case, asserted that if a pharmaceutical company benefits from a doctor's prescription, it should not automatically be construed as undue favor or a loss to the government. The ruling came while Justice Mohapatra quashed criminal proceedings against Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena, a former professor and head of the hematology department at SCB Medical College & Hospital in Cuttack. Dr. Jena had been accused of favoring certain pharmaceutical companies during his tenure between 2013 and 2017.

The state vigilance had registered a case against Dr. Jena based on an FIR alleging he abused his position to show undue favor to various pharmaceutical companies, violating the Odisha State Treatment Fund (OSTF) guidelines. The accusations included pressuring patients to purchase more expensive chemotherapy drugs instead of prescribing cheaper alternatives. Dr. Jena challenged these criminal proceedings in the High Court in 2024.

Justice Mohapatra emphasized that the OSTF guidelines do not prohibit prescribing costlier medicines, particularly when they offer better treatment outcomes. The court also noted that the screening committee responsible for scrutinizing applications and bills, including medical prescriptions, had not raised any objections to Dr. Jena's prescriptions.

The High Court underscored the importance of allowing doctors to treat patients fairly and fearlessly, following the best available treatment standards and drugs. The court cautioned against encouraging legal proceedings that could deter doctors from providing optimal care.

Furthermore, Justice Mohapatra stated that initiating criminal proceedings without a preliminary inquiry by experts in the relevant field was "ex-facie illegal." The court found no prima facie case of the alleged offenses based on the FIR's uncontradicted allegations against Dr. Jena. The court deemed the prosecution's actions arbitrary, discriminatory, and blatantly illegal.

In its final conclusion, the High Court stated it had no hesitation in concluding that the case fell squarely within the parameters for quashing a proceeding, as laid down by the Supreme Court. Allowing the criminal prosecution to continue would, according to the High Court, "most definitely amount to an abuse of process of law."

This ruling clarifies the extent to which doctors can prescribe medications without fear of legal repercussions, reinforcing their professional autonomy while maintaining essential safeguards to protect patients from potentially harmful or substandard treatments.