Ozempic drug misuse: Contempt of court plea filed in Delhi High Court against CDSCO

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a contempt of court petition alleging that the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) has failed to comply with a court directive to examine concerns over the misuse of diabetes drugs like Ozempic for weight loss [Jitendra Chouskey Vs Dr Rajeev Raghuvanshi].

Justice Sachin Datta also directed other respondents, including the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Union of India, to file their replies within four weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on May 21.

The dispute traces back to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by one Jitendra Chouksey flagging the rapid rise in the off-label use of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs such as Ozempic (Semaglutide), Mounjaro (Tirzepatide) and Victoza (Liraglutide).

Originally developed for Type 2 diabetes, these drugs have seen an explosive global demand for their secondary effect of weight loss, driven in part by celebrity endorsements, influencer marketing and wellness platforms.

The PIL filed by Chouksey alleged that, in India, these drugs were being promoted as “quick-fix” weight-loss solutions, including by gyms and clinics. He added that they were being accessed without prescriptions in some cases and that there was inadequate India-specific clinical data for weight-loss indications.

His petition warned of serious health risks that may accompany the unchecked use of such drugs, including pancreatitis, thyroid cancer, cardiovascular complications and neurological effects.

While disposing of the PIL in July 2025, the High Court had expressed concern over the unregulated availability of such drugs and orally observed that such medicines with serious consequences cannot be freely accessed without a prescription.

However, instead of issuing sweeping regulatory directions, the Court adopted a calibrated approach, directing CDSCO to examine the issues, consult stakeholders, including manufacturers, and take a reasoned decision within three months.

The petitioner later submitted a supplementary representation to the authorities concerned on July 13, 2025, along with supporting material.

However, it is alleged that no formal decision has been taken by the CDSCO within the three-month period prescribed by the Court. Only informal communications were made by CDSCO, indicating that the matter was “under consideration." Reminder communications sent subsequently also did not result in any substantive response, the petitioner says.

The petitioner has, therefore, filed a contempt of court petition over this alleged failure by the CDSCO to tackle the misuse of such diabetes drugs.

The petitioner has contended that the failure to take a decision within the prescribed time amounts to non-compliance with the Court’s order.

The petitioner's counsel today argued that no substantive steps had been taken by the authority even several months after the Court’s order.

“This honourable court directed us to give a supplementary representation… From July to March 2026, they did nothing,” counsel submitted.

It was further submitted that a brief response was received only after the contempt petition was filed, and that supporting enclosures had not been provided.

“All that you (CDSCO) need to do is to decide the representation,” the Bench observed in response.

The Court proceeded to seek the authority's response within four weeks.

Chouksey (petitioner) was represented by Advocates Rohit Kumar, Amey Shejwal, Shailendra Singh, Sandeep Goyal and Shevalik Singh.