MP bans sale of Coldrif cough syrup after 14 children die; samples contained toxic substance
Bhopal (PTI): The Madhya Pradesh government on Saturday banned the sale of Coldrif cough syrup following the death of 14 children in Chhindwara due to suspected renal failure, with officials stating that samples of the drug were found to contain 48.6 % diethylene glycol, a highly toxic substance.
A sample of the syrup, tested by the government drug analyst at the Drug Testing Laboratory in Chennai, was declared "Not of Standard Quality" by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Drug Control, officials said here.
The action by the Madhya Pradesh government came in the wake of the deaths of 14 children in Chhindwara district due to suspected kidney failure. Of these, 10 deaths were reported in Parasia subdivision since September 7, local officials said.
Yogita (2), a resident of Parasia, died at a Nagpur hospital in the morning, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Saurabh Kumar Yadav told PTI.
Six children were undergoing treatment, five in Nagpur and one in Chhindwara, he said, adding that the condition of three children admitted in Nagpur was critical.
Financial assistance of Rs 4 lakh was sanctioned for the kin of the 14 deceased children, officials said.
Of those died, 11 were from Parasia sub division, two from Chhindwara city and one from Chaurai tehsil.
The nine children who died earlier in Parasia were identified as Shivam (9), Vidhi (6), Adnan (6), Usaid (9), Rishika (10), Hetansh (11), Vikas (9), Chanchlesh (8) and Sandhya Bhosom (7).
SDM Yadav said that as a precautionary measure, the local administration had already banned the sale of Coldrif and another cough syrup, 'Nextro-DS', on Monday. The test report for Coldrif arrived on Saturday, while that of Nextro-DS is awaited.
The Tamil Nadu drug control authorities, in their report dated October 2, declared the Coldrif syrup sample (Batch No SR-13; Mfg: May 2025; Exp: April 2027) manufactured by Sresan Pharmaceuticals, Kancheepuram, as adulterated because it contained diethylene glycol (48.6% w/v), a poisonous substance "which may render the contents injurious to health."
Following the report, the Madhya Pradesh Food and Drug Administration issued instructions to stop further sale and distribution of Coldrif statewide and immediately seize any available stock for investigation under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It also ordered that other products manufactured by Sresan Pharmaceuticals be removed from sale pending testing.
Chief Minister Mohan Yadav, in a post on X, called the deaths "extremely tragic" and said strict action will be taken against those responsible.
"The sale of this syrup has been banned across Madhya Pradesh. A ban is also being imposed on other products of the company that manufactures the syrup," the CM stated.
The Tamil Nadu government had on Friday banned Coldrif following reports of deaths in Madhya Pradesh and at least three similar fatalities in Rajasthan due to suspected kidney infections.
Samples from the affected children have been sent to the National Institute of Virology in Pune, while further tests on the syrup's adulteration and contamination are underway.
The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) has initiated risk-based inspection at the manufacturing units of 19 drugs, including cough syrups and antibiotics, across six states, the Union health ministry said on Saturday.
A team comprising experts from the National Institute of Virology, the Indian Council of Medical Research, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, CDSCO and AIIMS-Nagpur, among others, are analysing various samples to assess the cause of deaths in and around Chhindwara, it stated.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
