Public interest needed in politics: Karnataka High Court pulls up State for closure of Janaushadhi Kendras

By Admin

20 Dec, 2025

Introduction
In a strong reaffirmation of the principle that governance must be guided by public welfare, the Karnataka High Court recently set aside the State government’s decision to shut down Janaushadhi Kendras operating in government hospitals. The Court’s observations went beyond the immediate dispute, underlining a deeper concern about policy decisions driven by political considerations rather than public interest.

Background of the Case
The case, Jagadeesha Moger v. State of Karnataka, arose after the State government ordered the closure of Janaushadhi Kendras established under a Central government scheme aimed at providing affordable medicines to the public. The State argued that since it had launched its own schemes to supply free medicines, the continued operation of these Kendras was unnecessary. As a result, eviction orders were issued against operators running Janaushadhi Kendras within government hospital premises.

Aggrieved by this decision, the operators approached the Karnataka High Court, challenging the State’s move as arbitrary and contrary to public interest.

High Court’s Observations
On December 10, Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions filed by the Kendra operators and sharply criticised the Congress-led State government. The Court quashed the May order directing the closure of Janaushadhi Kendras and restrained the State from interfering with their continued functioning at government hospitals.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Kendras were causing confusion in the supply of free medicines. It held that administrative confusion cannot become a licence for administrative caprice and that the reasons cited by the State were wholly inadequate.

Legitimate Expectation of Operators
A key aspect of the judgment was the recognition of the legitimate expectation of the Kendra operators. The Court noted that the petitioners had been running the Kendras uninterruptedly for nearly seven years under valid agreements with the State. There was no allegation or complaint against any of the Kendras, nor was it claimed that their operations were illegal or harmful.

The sudden decision to shut them down, the Court observed, violated the legitimate expectations of license holders who had invested time, resources, and effort based on assurances given by the State itself.

Doubts Over Free Medicine Supply Scheme
Justice Nagaprasanna also raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the State’s free medicine scheme. The Court remarked that if medicines were indeed freely and adequately available in hospitals, patients would not voluntarily purchase medicines from Janaushadhi Kendras.

The fact that patients continued to rely on these Kendras indicated gaps in the State’s supply system. The Court went so far as to observe that the proclaimed intent of free medicine supply appeared to be only an intent, not a consistently delivered reality.

Public Interest as the Core of Governance
Concluding that the continuance of Janaushadhi Kendras was clearly in public interest, the Court held that the State could not disrupt a smoothly functioning system without valid legal or public welfare grounds. The judgment strongly emphasised that public interest must be the soul of governance and not a slogan used to justify abrupt policy reversals.

In a striking remark, Justice Nagaprasanna stated that there should be public interest in politics and not politics in public interest, encapsulating the essence of the Court’s concern with the State’s approach.

Representation in the Case
Advocates Anirudh A. Kulkarni, Vasista Ramprasad, and Shreyas S. appeared for the petitioners. The State of Karnataka and its authorities were represented by Additional Advocate General J.M. Gangadhar along with advocate Hanumareddy. Advocate Venkatesh M. Kharvi appeared for the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India.

Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling serves as a significant reminder that policy decisions affecting essential public services, such as access to affordable medicines, must be rooted in genuine public interest. By protecting the Janaushadhi Kendras, the Court reinforced the idea that governance must prioritise continuity, fairness, and welfare over political expediency, ensuring that the most vulnerable sections of society are not adversely affected by sudden and unjustified policy shifts.