The Supreme Court today has refused to interfere with criminal proceedings arising from the alleged deaths of children in Uzbekistan linked to the consumption of a cough syrup manufactured by an Indian company.

The case stems from a Government Analyst’s report, which found that certain batches of cough syrup manufactured by Marion Biotech were “not of standard quality” due to the presence of diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol impurities in propylene glycol used in the formulation.

Appearing for the company, the counsel argued that the summoning order was legally unsustainable. It was submitted that the Government Analyst’s report only declared the drug ‘not of standard quality’ and the report did not describe the drug as “spurious,” “adulterated,” “poisonous,” or “toxic.” Therefore, prosecution under the graver penal provisions was improper.

“The entire complaint is premised on the Government Analyst’s report, which declares the drug not of standard quality…There is not a whisper in the report that the drug is spurious or poisonous,” they argued.

They further contended that there was no conclusive material linking the deaths in Uzbekistan directly to the consumption of the cough syrup, calling it a “perception” that had been built around the case.

However, the Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi indicated that the gravity of the allegations could not be overlooked.

“You should have been summoned under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code,” the Court remarked, referring to culpable homicide. The Bench further observed that the case had damaged the country’s reputation internationally:

“You not only bring bad name to the nation, at the international platform… that shows sometimes unfortunately how our modern fabric is going down. Only for the sake of money, you indulge to that extent..Children’s lives you have taken in a different country. Can you understand the dent you have caused to the ways of the nation as well? This is not a case to interfere.”

The Court further emphasised that whether the offence falls under a graver or lesser provision is ultimately a matter for trial. It declined to interfere with the summoning order at this stage, noting that all legal arguments remain available before the trial court.

“That is a matter of trial,” the Bench said, indicating that questions regarding the classification of the offence and the interpretation of the analyst’s report must be adjudicated during evidence.