KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has granted a stay on the enforcement of the government’s directive requiring the display of medicine prices pending the disposal of a judicial review filed by associations representing private medical practitioners.
Justice Alice Loke Yee Ching made the order on grounds that the status quo must be preserved until the judicial review is decided, saying 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 and Medipulse Healthcare Sdn Bhd, confirmed the matter.
He said the court had considered the rights of the parties, particularly the applicants’ rights, which could suffer irreparable harm if they were exposed to penal consequences.
The court fixed June 10 for the next case management.
On July 24, 2025, seven organisations and a private doctor filed the judicial review application to challenge the government’s order on displaying medicine prices.
The lawsuit concerns the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which came into effect on May 1, 2025.
The applicants are the Association of Private Practitioners Sabah, the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine, the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors, the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations Malaysia, the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association, the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak and Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad.
They named the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister, the Health Minister and the government 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 Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which is the impugned order in the case.
They argued that the government had failed to recognise the distinction between drugs sold at retail outlets and medicines administered as part of medical treatment.
The applicants also claimed the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister had breached principles of natural justice by making the decision without consulting registered medical practitioners represented by the MMA.
They said that while the regulation was intended to curb profiteering, it had instead created unwarranted competition among drug providers, with the focus placed solely on medicine prices.
The applicants are also seeking a court declaration that the impugned order is void as it is allegedly “tainted with illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness, disproportionality and impropriety”.
Meanwhile, MMA president Datuk Dr Thirunavukarasu Rajoo said the court’s decision meant no compounding or enforcement action could be taken against private clinics under the order until the case was decided.
He said the ruling confirmed that the legal questions raised by the applicants deserved full judicial consideration.
“We wish to be clear, MMA has never been against medicine price transparency. We support it. Patients have every right to know what they are paying for,” he said in a statement yesterday.
However, Dr Thirunavukarasu said MMA opposes the use of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723), which he described as a trade and consumer protection law, to regulate the practice of medicine.
He said the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586) and its 2006 regulations already governs patient rights, charges and grievance mechanisms in private healthcare.
