It is submitted that, under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, only the Central Government has the power to prohibit the sale or manufacture of a drug. The result is that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had upheld the restriction imposed on the sale of aromatic tincture of cardamom by a District Magistrate is declared to be illegal.Important Points:

1. Centralized Authority:

• The Supreme Court held that prohibition or restriction of any drug shall be centrally coordinated under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, which will have a uniformity and scientific basis.

• Ad hoc ban cannot be done by local authorities nor treat the legally licensed medical preparation as a prohibited article.

  2.  Observations of the Court:

• The decisions under Section 26A are based on expert advice, safety evaluations, and deliberate policy determinations.

• It clarified that the tincture remains a lawful product unless the Central Government issues a formal notification declaring it restricted or prohibited.

  3.  Invalidation of Local Action:

• The Court held the District Magistrate's order to restrict the trade of the aromatic tincture of cardamom invalid, pointing out that such actions bypass statutory checks and balances.

• Section 22 of the Act had vested general regulatory powers in inspectors, which were subject to the authority centralized under Section 26A.

Statements of Leaders or Officials:
Supreme Court Bench (Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale):
"The statutory scheme centralizes the ultimate decision-making power with the Central Government to ensure consistency and scientific rigor in drug regulation. Local measures fragment this framework and cannot override the Act."Brief Facts:

1. Background of the Case:

• The appellant was an aromatic tincture of cardamom trader. The business used to get closed after the Drug Control Exercise Department of Uttar Pradesh inspected it.

• The District Magistrate restrained the business on the ground that the tincture contained a very high percentage of alcohol.

  2.  Argument of Appellant:
The appellant contended that the restraint infringed their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution because the tincture was legally licensed and there was no prohibition as such under the 1940 Act.  3.  Submission of Respondent:
The authorities argued that the tincture was being misused as a cheap alcohol substitute by vulnerable groups, which necessitated the restriction.The judgment of the Supreme Court once again reiterates the centralized regulatory framework under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, which restrains local authorities from imposing arbitrary restrictions on the lawfully prescribed medical products. The judgment fortifies uniformity and scientific control in drug regulation, ensuring that only the Central Government can impose prohibitions in the public interest.