KUALA LUMPUR, August 26 — The Ministry of Health (MOH) has informed the High Court here that enforcement of a drug price display mandate will only begin on January 1, 2026.
The deferment – confirmed in a six-volume affidavit filed in the High Court yesterday by Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad – covers both enforcement and compounds under the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, gazetted under the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723).
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) also indicated that the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) – which issued the price marking order – is expected to file its own affidavit soon.
These were disclosed during today’s hearing of a judicial review application by the Private Medical Practitioners Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL) and Medipulse Healthcare Sdn Bhd that operates the Klinik Medipulse group of clinics.
Both applicants had sought an urgent stay of the drug price display mandate, believing that enforcement would begin on October 1 after Dzulkefly announced earlier this month that compounds under the order would take effect then.
Previously, the health minister promised an extension of “educational enforcement” of the drug price display mandate “until the court decides on the judicial review.”
Dzulkefly’s affidavit has now clarified that both price display enforcement and compounds have been postponed to January 1, 2026.
After proceedings today, the applicants’ lawyer, K. Shanmuga, told reporters: “We came to court urgently to get a stay of the order because the media statement was that enforcement will start from October 1. Yesterday, the Minister of Health filed an affidavit stating that enforcement will only begin on January 1, 2026.”
He added that the affidavit changes the immediate priorities of the case. “We are still at the leave stage. The AGC hasn’t yet said it will consent to leave. There are some discussions ongoing. Once we’ve read the affidavit, we’ll decide on how to move forward.”
Two Judicial Review Applications On Same Grounds
The PMPASKL-Medipulse suit is the second judicial review application against the medicine price display order. The first, filed on July 24 before High Court judge Alice Loke Yee Ching, was brought by seven medical and dental associations – including the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) – together with individual general practitioner (GP) Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad.
Both applications challenge the legality of KPDN’s order under Act 723, arguing that the ministry exceeded its powers by intruding into a field already governed by health care-specific laws, such as the Poisons Act 1952 and the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998.
Shanmuga acknowledged the overlap, saying lawyers from both cases now need to coordinate. “There’s also another case going on. The judge has asked us to resolve who is going to file the application and who is going to transfer to which court. I have to inform the other lawyer and ask them what they want to do.”
The court noted that consolidation typically follows the first case number, meaning the July 24 case before Justice Loke would take precedence over the PMPASKL-Medipulse application that was filed four days later on July 28.
Judge Urges Coordination
During case management, High Court judge Aliza Sulaiman directed parties to decide whether the PMPASKL-Medipulse suit should be transferred or remain in her court, and to clarify their positions on the stay application once they have studied the affidavit.
She cautioned against fragmented litigation across multiple courts, stressing the need for communication and coordination among the various solicitors.
Justice Aliza bluntly told them to “get your act together” and avoid what she described as applications “spread all over the BKK courts” – referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s Special Powers Division (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas).
Case management has been fixed for September 4. Parties are expected to report back on the consolidation issue, their positions on a stay, and their response to Dzulkefly’s affidavit.
