A new directive from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has sparked intense debate within the pharmaceutical community. The circular, dated February 23, 2026, asks the state licensing authorities to examine a proposal to grant ‘restricted licenses’ to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) to operationalize Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Jan Aushadhi Kendras (PMBJK) in rural and tribal areas where registered pharmacists are reportedly scarce.
The proposal originated from the Ministry of Cooperation, which argued that the mandatory requirement of a full-time registered pharmacist is hindering the expansion of affordable medicine centers in remote regions. By invoking Rules 62A and 62B of the Drugs Rules, 1945, the government is considering allowing PACS to operate these centers under Forms 20A and 21A. These specific licenses would permit the sale of certain drugs, primarily those not requiring professional supervision, without a pharmacist on-site.
Dr. Anurag Sahu, a Pharm D professional from Bhopal, has emerged as a vocal critic of the plan, warning that it could ‘water down and weaken’ the Pharmacy Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He argues that while the initial change may seem small, it sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually extend to other sectors. According to Dr. Sahu, allowing medicine distribution in the cooperative agriculture sector without professional oversight compromises the integrity of the entire healthcare system.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has already forwarded this request to all state health secretaries, urging them to sensitize local officers to the new rule position. While the government emphasizes that licensing authorities must still ensure adequate premises and proper storage before granting these restricted licenses, professionals fear that storage standards alone cannot replace the clinical judgment of a trained pharmacist.
For the PACS, this initiative is seen as a way to transform into vibrant and self-sustainable economic entities while improving medicine access in underserved areas. However, Dr. Sahu and other pharmacy advocates believe the long-term cost to public safety and the profession is too high. He has called for the formation of a unified coordination committee, urging pharmacy faculty and professionals across India to move forward together as a single front to prevent the dilution of the Pharmacy Act. By taking the initiative now, he believes the community can stop a dangerous precedent where restricted licenses replace professional oversight, ensuring that the clinical role of the pharmacist is not permanently bypassed and the profession's voice is not silenced.
As the DCGI awaits appropriate action from state authorities, the pharmaceutical sector remains on high alert. The pharmacist community in India is likely to strongly object to any government move that allows pharmacies to operate without registered pharmacists. This growing opposition emphasizes that the outcome of this proposal will determine the future of rural healthcare delivery, balancing the government's push for ‘Cooperation to Prosperity’ against the non-negotiable professional standards established by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940.
|