The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Siddaramaiah government’s May 14 order directing the closure of Jan Aushadhi Kendras operating inside government hospitals. The Dharwad bench, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed the directive and ordered the immediate continuation of these centres, restoring access to low-cost medicines for patients across the state.
The ruling marks a significant administrative setback for the Congress-led government. The court found that the closure order suffered from procedural lapses and failed to meet constitutional standards. Importantly, the judgment reinforced that decisions affecting public welfare and livelihoods cannot be implemented arbitrarily.
Jan Aushadhi Kendras, launched under the Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana, provide affordable generic medicines and have become a critical support system for economically vulnerable patients. Many rely on these centres when hospital supplies run short or specific medicines remain unavailable.
Why the Government’s Rationale Failed Judicial Scrutiny
The Siddaramaiah government justified the closure by claiming that government hospitals already supply free medicines, making hospital-based Jan Aushadhi Kendras unnecessary. However, the court questioned why the order targeted only centres within hospital premises while allowing others to function.
Petitioners argued that the decision lacked consultation, notice, or assessment of public impact. They also highlighted that these Kendras operate with valid licences, infrastructure, and trained staff. The court agreed that shutting them down without due process violated constitutional protections under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
Crucially, the court noted that administrative convenience cannot override public interest or fundamental rights.
When Welfare Becomes a Political Casualty
While the judgment focused on legality, the episode raises a deeper concern. Jan Aushadhi Kendras are not a partisan experiment; they are a public health intervention that directly benefits the poor. Targeting such schemes, especially those widely associated with the Modi government, creates the impression that political rivalry is being allowed to interfere with welfare delivery.
Healthcare policy should remain insulated from ideological discomfort. Affordable medicines do not carry party labels, and dismantling functional welfare mechanisms sends the wrong signal to citizens who depend on them daily.
The High Court’s ruling restores not just Jan Aushadhi Kendras, but also the principle that governance must prioritise people over politics. When courts are forced to intervene to protect welfare schemes, it reflects a failure of administrative judgment, one that Karnataka’s government will find difficult to explain away.
