NEW DELHI: The State Health Agency’s order directing pharmacies to mandatorily register as health facilities under the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) has triggered sharp opposition from chemists, who have taken up the matter with the CM.
They have questioned the legality of the directive and demanded that enrolment remain voluntary unless backed by law. The Drugs Control Department issued an order on Thursday asking all pharmacies to register themselves on the Health Facility Registry (HFR), describing it as a “key building block” of the ABDM.
“Being an integral part of the healthcare system, you are requested to sensitise members of your associations and other chemists to get enrolled under the HFR of the ABDM portal,” the order stated.
Pharmacy associations, however, argue that chemists are already governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and any additional compliance requirement must follow due process.
In a letter to the CM, the Retail Distribution Chemist Alliance (RDCA) said, “While RDCA supports the digital health mission and recognises its long-term benefits, we submit that there is no provision in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the Pharmacy Act mandating such enrolment. Licensed chemists are already fully regulated under existing laws. Additional compliance can only be imposed through a proper legal notification or amendment, not through an administrative letter.” The association alleged that no stakeholder consultation, awareness drive, or training session was conducted before the directive was issued. It also pointed out that hospitals, clinics, doctors, e-pharmacies and food delivery platforms selling medicines have not been subjected to similar directions, calling the move “discriminatory and unfair.”
The controversy has also reignited a parallel dispute over mandatory installation of CCTV cameras inside pharmacies. The RDCA said the order was a violation of patients’ right to privacy, arguing that prescriptions and sensitive health information could be recorded, infringing on Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The order is discriminatory since it applies only to the South district, not the rest of Delhi, thereby violating Article 14,” the association said.