SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2324

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT, CJ
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
DR VIJAENDREH SUBRAMANIAM & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-16-04-2024(W)]



Petitioner Advocates:Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim,Liew Horng Bin,Saravanan Kuppusamy ,Respondent Advocate: Gurdial Singh Nijar,Abraham Au Tian Hui,Lim Sze Han

Registered medical practitioners have the right to dispense Ivermectin as a Group B poison under the Poisons Act 1952, irrespective of its unregistered status for human use.

Headnote:(A) Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] - Sections 2, 17, 19, 21 - Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368] - Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 - Interpretation of rights of registered medical practitioners to dispense Ivermectin - Court found that Ivermectin is classified as a Group B poison under Act 366, allowing registered medical practitioners to dispense it for treatment purposes only. (Paras 1-5, 35-37, 91-109, 150-168)

(B) Separation of Powers - The court emphasized that it is not to interfere with executive policy regarding the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment, but rather to clarify the legal rights of practitioners under existing legislation. (Paras 150-169)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose after the seizure of Ivermectin from a medical practitioner’s clinic, with the respondents seeking judicial interpretation on their right to dispense the substance. The appellants argued that Ivermectin's use violated existing drug regulations. (Paras 4-10, 14-16, 28)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, clarifying that the respondents had the right to dispense Ivermectin under the Poisons Act without interference from the Sale of Drugs Act. (Paras 169)

Issues: The key issues included whether registered medical practitioners could dispense Ivermectin despite it being unregistered for human use and whether the court's intervention would impede ongoing criminal investigations. (Paras 35-37, 150-159)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rights of medical practitioners to dispense Group B poisons under Act 366 are clear and cannot be curtailed by subsidiary legislation, affirming the need for clarity in legal interpretations. (Paras 91-109, 150-168)

Result: Appeal dismissed, upholding the Court of Appeal's judgment.

JUDGMENT

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ:

Introduction

[1] The core issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of certain provisions in the Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and the Poison Regulations 1952, as well as the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368] and its regulations, namely the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 . We shall respectively refer to them asAct 366, the 1952 Regulations, Act 368, and the 1984 Regulations.

[2] The six questions upon which leave was granted ('Leave Questions'), are these:

"Leave Question 1

Whether the legal principles enunciated in Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed v. Government Of Malaysia & Anor; [1979] 2 MLJ 101 and YAB Dato' Dr Zambry Abd Kadir & Ors v. YB Sivakumar Varatharaju Naidu; Attorney-General Malaysia (Intervener); [2009] 4 MLJ 24; [2009] 4 CLJ 253 apply to the situations or circumstances or cases where there are substantial issues or grievances regarding pending criminal investigation, criminality, criminal charges and prosecutorial discretion of the Public Prosecutor?

Leave Question 2

In the circumstances where the disputes canvassed by the applicant is on the registered medical practitioners' right to dispense Ivermectin to patients for the specific purpose of pandemic Covid-19 treatment, is it apt for the Court to only rely on the provisions of the Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and Poison Regulations 1952 [1952 Regulations] and disregard the provisions of the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368] and Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 [1984 Regulations] in determining whether a registered medical practitioner is entitled to dispense Ivermectin to patients for the purpose of prophylaxis and / or medical treatment?

Leave Question 3

In the circumstances where at present, no product with Ivermectin as an active ingredient has been registered with the Drug Control Authority for human use and that it is the policy of the Government on the prohibition of Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment, whether it is apt for the Court to directly or indirectly permit the use of an unregistered poison like Ivermectin including and not restricted to the treatment of Covid-19 which was contrary to the regulatory regime and framework of the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368], Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 [1984 Regulations], Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and Poison Regulations 1952 [1952 Regulations]?

Leave Question 4

In the circumstances where to date, it is the Government's policy that the use of unregistered Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 is only permitted for the purpose of clinical trials subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health which is then in line with the guidance of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and that clinical trials to establish the efficacy and effectiveness of Ivermectin in this regard have yet to be concluded, whether it is apt for the Court to directly or indirectly permit the use of an unregistered poison like Ivermectin including and not restricted to the treatment of Covid-19 which was contrary to the regulatory regime and framework of the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368], Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 [1984 Regulations], Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and Poison Regulations 1952 [1952 Regulations]?

Leave Question 5

In the circumstances where the pandemic of Covid-19 gave rise to a public health emergency at a national and global level and that policy measures in respect of Covid-19 must necessarily be highly flexible, adapted based on every new development in scientific and medical knowledge, based on the collective experience of the world in dealing with a novel and deadly virus, whether it is apt for the Court to directly or indirectly permit the use of an unregistered poison like Ivermectin including and not restricted to the treatment of Covid-19 which was contrary to the regulatory regime and framework of the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368], Control of Drugs and Cosmetic Regulations 1984 [1984 Regulations], Poison

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top