INTRODUCTION:

The regulatory framework for the emergency approval of medical devices in India, an important role in ensuring the timely availability of life-saving technologies during public health crises, is overseen by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). With the evolving nature of healthcare needs, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian regulatory landscape has adapted to meet the demands of expedited medical device approvals¹. Medical devices in India are defined under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which encompass a broad range of instruments and technologies designed for medical purposes. A risk-based classification system ensures that devices undergo appropriate scrutiny based on the potential risk they pose to patients².

In emergencies, such as pandemics, the usual regulatory processes are streamlined to expedite the availability of critical devices like ventilators, diagnostic kits, and personal protective equipment (PPE). The Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020 further reinforced the flexibility of these regulations, introducing the framework for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Criteria for EUA include addressing urgent public health needs, lack of alternatives, and reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, albeit with less comprehensive data than required under normal circumstances³.

The EUA process in India involves multiple stages, from pre-submission consultations with the CDSCO to post-approval monitoring^4,5. During emergencies, the documentation requirements are adjusted to accept interim data or real-world evidence, allowing for rapid deployment while maintaining patient safety. Furthermore, India collaborates with international regulatory bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) to harmonize standards and streamline the approval process^6,7,8.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

This article is based on a comprehensive review of India's legislative and regulatory frameworks governing medical devices. Primary sources include the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, which provide the foundational legal structure for medical device regulation in India. Key amendments, such as the Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020, and guidelines issued by the MoHFW and CDSCO, were analyzed to understand the specific provisions for EUAs.

The review also examined India’s risk classification system under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, to understand its impact on the approval process during public health emergencies. Descriptive analysis was applied to explain the legal pathways, procedural guidelines, and emergency-specific regulatory adaptations in detail.

Definition of Medical Devices Under Indian Law:

Under Indian law, medical devices are defined in the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The definition covers instruments, apparatus, appliances, implants, materials, or other articles used alone or in combination to diagnose, monitor, prevent, treat or alleviate diseases or injuries. It also covers devices that are used to facilitate or maintain life, regulate conception, clean medical equipment, or gather data via in vitro analysis of human body specimens for medicinal or diagnostic purposes. The scope of this definition ensures that all devices with a medical purpose, from simple disposables like syringes to advanced medical technologies like MRI machines, fall under regulatory scrutiny. With new health challenges, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian government has expanded the definition of medical devices to include certain digital health technologies, diagnostic kits, and software for disease management, particularly under emergency use conditions^9,10,11.

Purpose and Importance of Emergency Approval in The India:

Emergency approval of medical devices is critical in the Indian healthcare system, where rapid response to public health crises is paramount. Emergency approval aims to expedite access to essential devices such as ventilators, diagnostic tools, and PPE, which are necessary for managing outbreaks and other emergencies. In India's vast and diverse healthcare system, timely access to these devices can prevent large-scale health deterioration and save lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of India introduced expedited approval pathways for medical devices, recognizing the need to bypass traditional lengthy regulatory processes in favour of a more streamlined approach. This also included waivers of specific clinical trial requirements, conditional marketing approvals, and import facilitation for high-demand devices, reflecting the growing importance of emergency approvals in public health policy^7,.

Risk Based Classification of Medical Devices:

In India, medical devices are categorised according to the risk they present to users and patients. This classification system, outlined in the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, follows international standards set by the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) and the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF). The classification ensures that devices undergo a rigorous regulatory scrutiny based on the level of risk they present¹². Medical devices in India are classified into four categories, ranging from low to high risk, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Classification of Medical Devices and Associated Regulatory Controls

Class	Risk	Example	Regulatory Control
Class-A	Low risk	Surgical dressings, bandages, thermometers	Less stringent
Class-B	Low to moderate risk	Hypodermic needles, blood pressure cuffs	Moderate regulatory oversight
Class-C	Moderate to high risk	Ultrasound machines, infusion pumps, ventilators	Stricter quality control and testing
Class-D	High risk	Pacemakers, heart valves, life-saving diagnostics	Most rigorous, extensive clinical evaluations

Regulatory Framework and Governing Bodies:

The regulatory framework for emergency approval of medical devices in India involves multiple central and state authorities. These bodies, as given in Table 2, collaborate to ensure that medical devices, especially those required during emergencies, meet national and international safety standards while being made available as quickly as possible^2,11.

Differences Between Regular and Emergency Approval Processes:

During public health emergencies, regulatory authorities in India play a crucial role in adapting the approval processes for medical devices to ensure timely access to critical products while maintaining essential safety and efficacy standards. Table 3 outlines the key differences between India's regular and emergency approval processes^13,14.

Table 2: Governing Bodies for Emergency Approval of Medical Devices in India

Governing Bodies	Role and Responsibilities
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare	MoHFW provides policy direction and regulatory oversight for the healthcare sector, including medical devices. The MoHFW works closely with the CDSCO during public health emergencies to ensure that regulatory pathways are aligned with broader national health objectives. In emergencies, the Ministry may issue temporary policy relaxations, guidelines, and advisories to expedite the approval and distribution of medical devices.
Central Drugs Standard Control Organization	CDSCO regulates medical devices in India and can grant EUA during public health crises. Under the Ministry of Health, the CDSCO fast-tracks approvals, including provisional authorizations for devices meeting safety standards. The Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020 strengthened its ability to quickly approve high-demand diagnostic kits and other critical medical devices.
State Licensing Authorities	State Licensing Authorities (SLA) are responsible for regulating the manufacture, sale, and distribution of medical devices at the state level. SLAs enforce compliance with the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, and work in conjunction with the CDSCO to facilitate local approvals, inspections, and market surveillance. During emergencies, SLAs may expedite the licensing process for manufacturers of critical medical devices to ensure timely availability.

Table 3: Differences Between Regular and Emergency Approval Processes for Medical Devices in India

Aspect	Regular Approval Process	Emergency Approval Process
Definition	The standard procedure for obtaining regulatory approval for medical devices, ensuring compliance with safety and efficacy standards.	A fast-tracked process designed to expedite the approval of medical devices that address urgent health needs or emergencies, such as life-threatening conditions.
Regulatory Framework	Governed by the Indian Medical Device Rules (IMDR) 2017 and its amendments, which outline classification, registration, manufacturing, and post-market requirements.	Governed by specific provisions under IMDR allowing for expedited pathways in situations of public health emergencies or unmet medical needs.
Clinical Investigation Requirement	Clinical investigations are generally required for Class B, C, and D devices unless exempted based on prior marketing in other countries (e.g., EU, US).	Clinical investigations may be waived or expedited if existing data supports the device's safety and effectiveness, particularly if it is already approved in other jurisdictions.
Review Timeline	The review process can take several months to over a year depending on the complexity of the device and completeness of the application.	The review process is significantly shortened, often completed within weeks to a few months, depending on the urgency of the situation and available data.
Approval Criteria	Devices must demonstrate safety and efficacy through comprehensive clinical data and compliance with quality management systems.	Focuses primarily on immediate safety and potential benefits to patients in urgent situations; may allow for conditional approval with post-market surveillance requirements.
Examples of Use Cases	Standard surgical instruments, diagnostic devices, implants that have undergone extensive testing before market entry.	Devices used during public health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19 diagnostic kits), or novel technologies that provide critical care solutions when existing options are inadequate.

· Review and Evaluation by CDSCO: Once the application is submitted, the CDSCO conducts a thorough review, often in consultation with expert committees such as the Subject Expert Committee (SEC). The review evaluates the data provided to ensure that the product's benefits outweigh its risks in the emergency context. The time frame for this review is typically much shorter than the standard drug or device approval process due to the urgent nature of the situation.

· Decision Making (Grant or Denial of EUA): The CDSCO decides to either grant or deny the EUA after completing the review. This decision is based on a risk-benefit assessment, considering the situation's urgency and the available evidence. If the EUA is granted, it will be subject to certain conditions, such as post-approval monitoring and risk mitigation strategies.

· Post-approval Conditions and Obligations: Once an EUA is granted, the product's manufacturer or sponsor must comply with post-approval conditions to ensure continued safety and efficacy during its use in an emergency.

· Continued Monitoring and Reporting Requirements: After the product is deployed under EUA, manufacturers must monitor its safety and efficacy. They must submit regular reports to the CDSCO, including data on adverse events, product performance, and any new safety concerns.

· Labelling and Instructions for Use during Emergency: Products authorized under EUA must include information on the emergency conditions under which the product is being used, instructions on proper administration, and any known risks associated with the product. The labelling must be clear and informative, ensuring that healthcare providers and patients understand the product's limitations and the nature of its emergency use²⁰.

· Duration and Renewal of EUA: An EUA is typically granted for the duration of the public health emergency, but it may be subject to renewal if the emergency persists or if more data becomes available to support continued use. The CDSCO regularly reviews the data on products authorized under EUA to determine whether the authorization should be extended, modified, or revoked. Renewal is contingent on demonstrating that the product continues to meet the criteria for EUA, including safety, efficacy, and the absence of adequate alternatives^11,21.

· Revocation or Modification of EUA: The CDSCO has the authority to revoke or modify an EUA at any time if new data suggests that the risks of the product outweigh the benefits or if the emergency changes. Revocation may also occur if alternative treatments become available or the original conditions that warranted the EUA no longer exist. In such cases, the product may be withdrawn from the market, or its use may be restricted to specific populations or circumstances^22,23,24.

Timelines and Deadlines for Emergency Review:

The fast-track review process, a strategic approach to hasten the approval of medical products, is overseen by the CDSCO. The CDSCO's specific timelines and deadlines for each stage of the review process ensure rapid evaluation without compromising safety or efficacy, demonstrating their authority and expertise in the field ^25,26

1. Accelerated Timelines: Accelerated timelines are crucial for fast-track applications reviewed by the CDSCO. The initial review is completed within 30-60 days, far quicker than the standard 180-240 days. For rolling submissions, each data segment is reviewed upon receipt, cutting the overall review time to weeks instead of months. In emergencies, this process is further expedited. Final approval or denial is typically reached within 3-4 months, ensuring timely product availability during public health crises ^19,21,25,26.

2. Conditional Approvals and Real-Time Data Monitoring: CDSCO may issue conditional approval under fast-track mechanisms if data are still emerging. This allows the product to be used in a controlled setting while additional data continue to be collected and evaluated in real-time, ensuring ongoing safety monitoring even after approval^21,25,26.

Coordination Between Indian Authorities and International Bodies:

A key strength of India's fast-track review mechanism is its collaboration with global regulatory agencies. CDSCO works closely with international bodies to harmonize standards, share information, and ensure fast-tracked products meet global safety and efficacy benchmarks. Key partnerships include:

· WHO: WHO’s Emergency Use Listing is a global process used to expedite the availability of products during public health emergencies. CDSCO often aligns with WHO’s guidelines and accepts WHO-EUL-listed products for consideration in India’s fast-track reviews. This alignment and acceptance not only expedite the availability of products but also ensure that the products meet international standards. For instance, [insert product name] was successfully fast-tracked in India after being listed by WHO-EUL^27,28,29,30.

· US FDA: The US FDA’s EUA process serves as a reference for the CDSCO in some instances. India collaborates closely with the US FDA to harmonize review standards, particularly for vaccines and other critical drugs^27,28,29,30.

· EMA: The EMA’s Accelerated Assessment and Conditional Marketing Authorization procedures are similarly used as benchmarks. India often reviews EMA assessment data to speed up its regulatory decisions, thereby ensuring that safe and effective products reach the market faster. This collaboration with EMA significantly impacts India's regulatory decisions, especially in critical situations^27,28,29,30.

DISCUSSION:

The regulatory framework for emergency medical device approval in India is crucial for responding to public health crises, as seen during COVID-19. India's regulatory bodies, particularly MoHFW and CDSCO, have expedited approval processes while ensuring safety. A key aspect is the streamlined approach for granting EUA, formalized through the Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020, allowing rapid approval of ventilators, diagnostic kits, and PPE. The risk-based classification system ensures higher-risk devices undergo stricter scrutiny even under accelerated timelines.

Another major development is the expanded definition of medical devices to include digital health technologies and diagnostic tools, which played a vital role during the pandemic. Despite these advancements, India lacks a fully structured emergency approval process, which could hinder rapid responses in future crises. A clearer framework would enhance efficiency and preparedness.

Balancing speed and safety remains a key challenge, with emergency approvals relying on preliminary or real-world data instead of full clinical trials. Conditional approvals enable controlled device use while further data is collected, ensuring flexibility in evolving emergencies.

Overall, India's regulatory system for emergency approvals is dynamic and adaptable, balancing expedited access with safety. Strengthening this framework with a dedicated emergency approval pathway will enhance India’s readiness for future health crises. The adaptations made during COVID-19 will likely guide future regulatory advancements.

CONCLUSION:

The regulatory framework for emergency approval of medical devices in India has proven to be a critical tool for addressing public health crises, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. By streamlining the approval process through Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and adapting to evolving healthcare needs, India has ensured that life-saving devices such as ventilators, diagnostic kits, and personal protective equipment (PPE) are made available swiftly during emergencies. The framework's risk-based classification system and adjustments to documentation requirements strike a crucial balance between speed and safety, ensuring that the deployed devices are not only swift but also effective and reliable. Additionally, India's collaboration with international regulatory bodies has strengthened its emergency response, aligning with global best practices while maintaining its regulatory integrity. The experience gained from managing the COVID-19 pandemic through expedited regulatory pathways will likely shape future approaches to emergency medical device approvals. As new health challenges arise, this framework positions India to continue providing timely access to critical medical devices without compromising on the essential standards of safety and efficacy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

I would like to thank Amity Institute of Pharmacy, Amity University, Noida for providing the opportunity and resources for writing the review.

COMPETING INTERESTS:

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

CDSCO- Central Drugs Standard Control Organization

MoHFW- Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

EUA- Emergency Use Authorization

WHO- World Health Organization

US FDA- United State Food Drug Administration

EMA- European Medical Agency

PPE- Personal Protective Equipment

GHTF- Global Harmonization Task Force

IMDRF- International Medical Device Regulators Forum

SLA- State Licensing Authorities

IMDR- Indian Medical Device Rules

CTD- Common Technical Document

SEC- Subject Expert Committee

REFERENCES:

1. Saini G. Budhwar V. Choudhary M. Review on people’s trust on home use medical devices during COVID-19 pandemic in India. Health and Technology. 2022; 12(2): 527-46. doi.org/10.1007/s12553-022-00645-y

2. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. Medical Device and Diagnostics. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/

3. Tade RS. Nangare SN. Sangale PM. Patil MR. Patil AG et al. Historical dilemmas of coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Public health emergency, management perspectives, and global impacts International Journal of Nursing Education and Research. 2021; 9(3): 345-6. https://doi.org/10.52711/2454-2660.2021.00080

4. Badnjević A. Pokvić LG. Džemić Z. Bečić F. Risks of emergency use authorizations for medical products during outbreak situations: A Delhi State Health Mission. FAQ on COWIN for Healthcare and Frontline Workers. Available from: https://dshm.delhi.gov.in/(S(anjsnxdbajexzs2iqruzkarz))/COWIN/English/FAQHWFrontline.pdf

5. Shekhar R. Muralidharan P. Hallur N. Puranik SB. Jagadibabu S. Patel P. Alternative biosimilar drugs' impact on global COVID-19 pandemic and regulatory approval repurposed in emergency periods (2020-2022). Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(9): 4042-8. https://doi.org/10.52711/0974-360x.2023.00663

6. Bollaerts K. Wyndham-Thomas C. Miller E. Izurieta HS. Black S. Andrews N. et al. The role of real-world evidence for regulatory and public health decision-making for accelerated vaccine deployment-a meeting report. Biologicals. 2024; 85: 101750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2024.101750

7. Dinda A. Tripathi S. John B. Revisiting regulatory framework in India for accelerated vaccine development in pandemics with an evidence-based fast-tracking strategy. The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2020; 152(1): 156-60. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_3640_20

8. Bonagani RR. World Health Organization’s responsive policies for the containment of COVID-19 pandemic in the world: An analysis. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2022; 13(3): 211-2. https://doi.org/10.52711/2321-5828.2022.00034

9. Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India. Guidelines of AMD-CF Scheme. Available from: https://www.pharmaceuticals.gov.in/sites/default/files/Guidelines%20of%20AMD-CF%20Scheme.pdf

10. Gomez AL. Venkatesh DN. Neelakandan N. A comparative study of medical device regulations in India: Before and after the implementation of Medical Device Rules 2017. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(9): 4423-9. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360x.2020.00782.9

11. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. Medical Devices Rules, 2017. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/resources/UploadCDSCOWeb/2022/m_device/Medical%20Devices%20Rules,%202017.pdf

12. Gomez AL. Venkatesh DN. Neelakandan N. A comparative study of medical device regulations in India: Before and after the implementation of Medical Device Rules 2017. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(9):4423-9. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00782.9

13. Yale Medicine. What Does 'EUA' Mean? Available from: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean

14. Kamnoore K. Venkatesh MP. Balamuralidhara V. Pramod Kumar TM. Regulatory requirements for conducting clinical trials in India. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(3):1517-22. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360x.2020.00276.0

15. Tran A. Witek TJ. The emergency use authorization of pharmaceuticals: History and utility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pharmaceutical Medicine. 2021; 35(4):203-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-021-00397-6.

16. Gamessa TW. Tadesse ZK. Abebe ST. Ibrahim MA. Obse RB. Ahmed YS. Medical devices maintenance campaign: An experience of COVID-19 emergency response in Ethiopia. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(10): 5475-8. https://doi.org/10.52711/0974-360x.2021.00955

17. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. Notice Regarding Regulatory Pathways for Vaccines and New Drugs, 15 April 2021. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/export/sites/CDSCO_WEB/Pdf-documents/notice15april21.pdf

18. Bhat BB. Prabhu PP. Lobo MJ. Anusha. Prathvi. Kamath BV. Medical device industry in India: Past to present. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2019; 12(12): 5959-62. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360x.2019.01034.5

19. Raghotham S. Balamuralidhara V. Malhotra S. ‘SUGAM’ pathway for pharmaceutical products in India: An easy approach. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(10): 4635-9. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00847.8

20. Sravanthi VL. Kamaraj R. Regulatory Labeling Requirements and its Labeling Comparison between US and EU. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(11): 4875-7. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00887.9

21. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. FAQs on New Drugs. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/resources/UploadCDSCOWeb/2018/UploadPublic_NoticesFiles/faqnd.pdf

22. Narasimhan J. Maanvizhi S. Regulatory Approval Pathway for COVID-19 Vaccine in USA, Europe, and India. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2023; 85(4): 860-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ms9.0000000000000000

23. MedEnvoy Global. Medical Device Registration in India. Available from: https://medenvoyglobal.com/medical-device-registration-in-india/#:~:text=Documents%20related%20to%20Certification%20(ISO,are%20submitted%20in%20English%20language

24. Emergo by UL. India CDSCO Medical Device Registration and Approval. Available from: https://www.emergobyul.com/services/india-cdsco-medical-device-registration-and-approval

25. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. SUGAM User Manual. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/export/sites/CDSCO_WEB/Pdf-documents/SUGAM_user_manual.pdf

26. Indian Council of Medical Research. Handbook for Applicants and Reviewers of Clinical Trials. Available from: https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/reports/Handbook%20for%20Applicants%20and%20Reviewers%20of%20Clinical%20Trials.pdf

27. Rawat S. Gupta A. Regulatory requirements for Drug Development and Approval in the United States: A review. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2011; 1(1): 1-6. https://asianjpr.com/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2011-1-1-1

28. Arjun S. Venkatesh MP. Balamuralidhara V. Pramod Kumar TM. Expedited programs for drug development and approval in the USA. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(3): 1409-14. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00258.9

29. Bhavyasri D. Manikandan K. Kamaraj R. Marketing Approval for Medical Devices in European Union. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2019; 12(1): 391-5. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00071.4

30. Kalaiselvan V. Aishwarya G. Sharma A. Medical device regulation in South-East Asian countries: Current status and gap areas. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2021; 11(3): 173-9. https://doi.org/10.52711/2231-5691.2021.00032

Received on 04.10.2024 Revised on 20.02.2025

Accepted on 16.05.2025 Published on 01.10.2025

Available online from October 04, 2025

Research J. Pharmacy and Technology. 2025;18(10):5054-5060.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2025.00730

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Document Type	Description
Cover Letter	An official letter requesting emergency approval, including device details, manufacturer information, and justification for its urgent use.
Device Master File (DMF)	A comprehensive file detailing the device description, design, intended use, manufacturing processes, risk management documentation, and sterilization processes.
Technical Documentation	Detailed design specifications, manufacturing drawings, labeling information, instructions for use, risk classification, and stability data must be included.
Application Form (MD-22)	Required to seek permission for conducting clinical investigations of investigational medical devices.
Safety and Efficacy Data	Evidence from bench testing, pre-clinical, and clinical trials, confirming the device's safety and effectiveness, particularly for emergency use.
Justification for Emergency Use	A scientific rationale explaining the urgency of the device's use in addressing a public health threat.
Quality Management System Documentation	Evidence that the manufacturer adheres to quality management standards, such as ISO 13485.
Risk Management Plan	A risk management plan compliant with ISO 14971, identifying potential risks and mitigation measures implemented for the device.
Post-Market Surveillance Plan	A strategy outlining how the manufacturer will monitor the device's performance once it is on the market, including reporting adverse events.