The Federal Court’s Ivermectin Ruling Did Not Say It Works for Covid-19

About this guide: This explainer uses an incident reported on 2025-03-03 as a starting point. The legal rules below are general; they do not decide anyone's guilt, liability or individual case.

What happened

On 3 March 2025, the Federal Court dismissed the Malaysian government’s appeal in Kerajaan Malaysia v Dr Vijaendreh Subramaniam. The case began after Selangor pharmaceutical enforcement officers bought a box of ivermectin tablets from an assistant at a clinic on 14 June 2021, then entered the clinic and seized tablets and capsules. The two doctors later asked the civil courts to clarify what registered medical practitioners were legally allowed to dispense.

The High Court first dismissed their case. The Court of Appeal reversed that result in 2023 and made declarations in the doctors’ favour. The government then appealed to the Federal Court. A three-judge panel led by then Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat upheld the Court of Appeal’s declarations. New Straits Times and CodeBlue independently reported the final ruling, while the published judgment gives the court’s full reasoning.

The headline was easy to misunderstand. Ivermectin had become deeply controversial during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some readers treated the ruling as proof that the drug worked against Covid-19; others treated it as a general approval for anyone to obtain or take it. Neither reading matches the judgment. The court repeatedly separated the legal question — what the Poisons Act permits a registered doctor to dispense — from the scientific question of whether ivermectin is effective against Covid-19.

That distinction is the useful part of this incident. Courts interpret laws. They do not turn a disputed treatment into proven medicine merely by deciding which statute governs its supply. A medicine may be legally available through a professional and still be inappropriate for a particular patient, unsupported for a particular use, or subject to duties about prescriptions, preparation, labelling and professional care.

The legal insight: what law applies

The starting point is the Poisons Act 1952, known as Act 366. In this law, the word ‘poison’ is a regulatory label. It means a substance included in the statutory Poisons List; it does not necessarily mean poison in the everyday sense of something like rat poison. The judgment recorded that ivermectin was classified as a Group B poison and was not a Group A poison.

Section 19(1)(a) says a registered medical practitioner may sell, supply or administer a poison other than a Group A poison to the practitioner’s patient, but only for that patient’s medical treatment. Section 21 then controls retail supply of Group B poisons. It allows supply by a registered medical practitioner in accordance with section 19, or by a registered pharmacist acting on a prescription that meets the Act’s requirements. Put simply, this is a controlled professional route, not open retail sale to anyone who asks.

The government argued that the Poisons Act had to be read together with the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 and the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984. Regulation 7 generally prohibits manufacture, sale, supply, import, possession or administration of a product unless it is registered and the person has the appropriate licence. At the relevant time, the government’s position was that no ivermectin product had been registered for human use by the Drug Control Authority.

The Federal Court held that the Sale of Drugs Act and its subsidiary regulations could not remove the specific right that Parliament had given registered medical practitioners under sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Poisons Act. ‘Subsidiary legislation’ means rules made under an Act. Such rules sit below an Act passed by Parliament and cannot take away a right conferred by the parent legislation. For these doctors’ right to dispense a Group B poison to their own patients for treatment, the Poisons Act controlled the answer.

There are firm limits. The court said the dispensing must be for treatment of the doctor’s patient only. Section 19 also contains preparation and supervision requirements, while the wider Act and regulations govern matters such as prescriptions, storage, packaging and labelling. The ruling was not a declaration that every sale, supply, importation or advertisement involving ivermectin is lawful. Nor did it decide whether any person was guilty or innocent of a separate offence arising from the clinic operation.

The judgment also made a procedural point. A person may ask a civil court for a declaration of what the law means even when a criminal investigation or charge exists, provided the request genuinely seeks clarification of legal rights rather than a civil declaration that someone committed an offence or is innocent. A ‘declaration’ is a court order stating the parties’ legal position. Here, the doctors did not ask the civil court to stop a prosecution or rule on criminal guilt; they asked which statutory framework governed doctors’ dispensing rights.

What this means for you

For an ordinary patient, the ruling does not create a shortcut around a consultation. You cannot point to the case and insist that a pharmacy sell you ivermectin without a valid prescription, or that a doctor prescribe it. The judgment confirms a doctor’s legal dispensing route under the Poisons Act; it does not replace the doctor’s professional judgment about whether a medicine is suitable for you.

It also does not make animal formulations interchangeable with medicines supplied for a human patient. The case concerned the statutory rights of registered medical practitioners. Buying an unverified product online, using a veterinary product, sharing another person’s medicine or guessing a dose sits outside the careful doctor-patient route described by the court and can expose you to real health risks.

If a doctor proposes a medicine for a use you did not expect, ask calm, specific questions. What condition is it meant to treat? What evidence supports that use? Is the product registered for this use in Malaysia? What are the known risks, alternatives and signs that mean you should stop or seek urgent help? A legal power to dispense and a sound clinical reason to prescribe are related, but they are not the same question.

Keep the court’s wording in proportion when you see it shared online. ‘Doctors may dispense’ does not mean ‘the Federal Court found it effective’. The court expressly said the case was not about ivermectin’s efficacy against Covid-19. That single distinction helps patients avoid turning a legal headline into medical advice.

What this incident teaches us

This case is a good example of why the hierarchy of law matters. Parliament had placed a specific dispensing rule in the Poisons Act. The government relied on a broad restriction in regulations made under another Act. The Federal Court would not let those regulations erase the more specific statutory right. When an Act and subsidiary legislation appear to pull in different directions, the wording and purpose of the Acts come first.

The ruling is not a victory for every claim made about ivermectin. In fact, the judgment was careful about the government’s concern over unproven Covid-19 treatments. The court’s answer was institutional: if the government wished to curb dispensing of a listed poison, it needed to use a suitable legal mechanism, including the power under section 6 of the Poisons Act to vary the Poisons List in consultation with the Poisons Board. Public-health goals do not allow an agency to stretch one set of regulations beyond what Parliament authorised.

There is a lesson for reporting too. A short headline can collapse three separate questions into one. First, can a registered doctor legally dispense the substance? Second, is a particular product registered? Third, is the proposed treatment supported and suitable for this patient? The Federal Court answered the first question in the setting before it. It did not make every product lawful or answer the clinical question for every person.

Patients are safest when they resist both extremes: ‘the court allowed it, so it must work’ and ‘the product was controversial, so the judgment means nothing’. The decision matters because it identifies the legal source of a doctor’s dispensing authority. Its value is accuracy, not an endorsement of self-treatment or of any Covid-19 claim.

The verdict

The Federal Court’s ruling is narrow but significant. Registered medical practitioners may dispense ivermectin as a Group B poison to their own patients for treatment under the Poisons Act 1952, and subsidiary regulations under the Sale of Drugs Act could not remove that statutory right. The court did not decide that ivermectin works against Covid-19. Patients should read the judgment as a medicines-law decision, not a prescription: consult a registered practitioner, ask about evidence and alternatives, and never self-medicate from a headline.

What to actually do

• Do not start, stop or change ivermectin or any other prescription medicine because of this article or a social-media summary of the case.
• Ask the prescriber what condition the medicine is intended to treat, why it is being recommended for you, and what evidence and alternatives were considered.
• Check that you are dealing with a registered medical practitioner and obtain controlled medicines only through a lawful clinic or pharmacy route.
• Ask for the product name, dose, directions, possible side effects and warning signs in writing, then keep the label and receipt.
• Do not use a veterinary formulation, another person’s medicine or an online product of uncertain origin.
• If you suspect a serious adverse reaction, seek urgent medical care. For a non-urgent concern, contact the prescriber or pharmacist promptly rather than experimenting with the dose.