KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has granted a stay of enforcement on the government's directive to display medicine prices pending the disposal of a judicial review filed by associations of private doctors.
Justice Alice Loke Yee Ching made the order on the grounds that the status quo must be preserved pending the outcome of the judicial review, as the effects would be "irreparable" if a stay was not granted.
Lawyer Abraham Au, who represented the Private Medical Practitioners Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL) and Medipulse Healthcare Sdn Bhd, confirmed the matter.
He said the court had considered that the parties' rights, particularly the applicants’ rights, would be irreparably harmed if exposed to penal consequences.
The court has fixed June 10 for the next case management.
On July 24, 2025, seven organisations and a private doctor filed an application for judicial review to challenge the government's order requiring the display of medicine prices.
The lawsuit was in relation to the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drugs) Order 2025, which came into effect on May 1, 2025.
The applicants are the Association of Private Practitioners Sabah (APPS); the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA); the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (Maafim); the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors (Perdim); the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Association Malaysia (FPMPAM), the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association (MPDPA), the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak (SPMPS) and one Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad.
They named the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister, the Health Minister and the government of Malaysia as the first, second and third respondents, respectively.
The medical practitioners are seeking an order of certiorari to quash the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry’s Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Making for Drug) Order 2025, which is also the impugned order in this case.
They claimed the government had failed to recognise the difference between drugs sold by retail and those administered for treatment.
It also added that the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister had breached principles of natural justice by arriving at the decision without consulting registered medical practitioners represented by the MMA.
They said that while the purpose of the regulation was to curb profiteering activities, it has created unwarranted competition among drug providers, with the sole focus being the price of drugs.
The applicants are seeking a court declaration that the impugned order was void as it was “tainted with illegality, irrationality and unreasonableness, disproportionality and impropriety.”
