Terming it a “broad daylight dacoity”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock over the overpricing of essential cancer drugs and wondered why authorities remained silent.Pointing out that one drug carried an MRP of Rs 27,000 despite being supplied to retailers for Rs 2,700, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “It’s very surprising that the authorities who are supposed to take action on this are silent.”While hearing petitions raising drug-related issues, including that of ensuring strict price control over medicines, the Bench said it was “absolutely shocking” that an essential cancer drug had a printed MRP of Rs 27,000 even though its price to retailer (PTR) was Rs 2,700.“The MRP is 10 times the rate at which it is provided to the retailers. If this is not extortion, then what is it? People sell their houses, ornaments to get treatment. There are essential medicines for cancer on which the MRP is printed as Rs 27,000 while the PTR is Rs 2,700. This is absolute rampage and carnage. This is broad daylight dacoity with patients,” it said.”When patients are taking treatment under Ayushman Bharat scheme, this whole price has to be paid by the taxpayers. Hospitals are buying medicines at these prices and then reimbursing from the government. It’s ultimately taxpayer’s money. There is a clear-cut case of fraud,” the Bench noted.The Bench wondered how patients could be subjected to such pricing. Describing the issue of fixing medicine prices as a major issue, it posted the matter for hearing on September 29.The petitioners submitted that regulating the MRP of medicines was a matter of critical importance. One of the petitions sought directions to make drug formulations more affordable by preventing alleged unethical overpricing of essential medicines by pharmaceutical companies and retailers.It also sought strict enforcement of price controls under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, to prevent violations of the price-fixing mechanism across the drug supply chain and disproportionate profits by retailers through unfair trade practices.The second petition has demanded disciplinary action against medical practitioners for failing to prescribe generic medicines to patients.Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj submitted on behalf of the Centre that in one of the petitions the government was not approaching it as an adversarial litigation.