Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Access to Life-Saving Medicines After Cancer Patient Dies During Pendency of Kerala High Court Case
In a significant intervention concerning the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the issue of access to life-saving medicines after expressing concern over the prolonged pendency of a petition before the Kerala High Court, where a breast cancer patient died while awaiting a final decision on the affordability of a patented cancer drug. The matter has brought renewed judicial focus on both access to essential medicines and the need for expeditious adjudication in cases involving life and health.
The suo motu proceedings were initiated by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. The Court issued notice to the Union Government and simultaneously requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the pending writ petition, observing that delays in matters affecting the right to life require urgent judicial attention.
The controversy originated in June 2022, when a breast cancer patient approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Central Government to issue a Government Use Licence under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. Such a licence would have enabled the manufacture or procurement of affordable generic versions of Ribociclib, a patented drug used in breast cancer treatment, which the petitioner argued had become prohibitively expensive for ordinary patients. The Union Government declined the request, maintaining that the circumstances did not constitute a case of national emergency warranting such intervention.
Although the original petitioner died during the early stages of the litigation, the Kerala High Court chose not to close the proceedings. Recognising the larger public importance of the issue, it converted the matter into a suo motu public interest litigation titled “In Re: Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines.” The High Court appointed an amicus curiae, sought reports from the Central Government, called for expert inputs, impleaded pharmaceutical companies, and sought scientific material from bodies including the Indian Council of Medical Research. Despite these steps, the matter remained undecided.
During the Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves informed the Bench that the case had been listed for hearing 57 times since January 2023 without reaching final adjudication. Referring to the original petitioner, counsel remarked that “she died” while waiting for justice. The Chief Justice observed that he had initially refrained from intervening because the issue was already pending before the High Court but ultimately found it necessary to act after learning that the proceedings had remained unresolved despite repeated listings.
The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights two constitutional concerns. The first relates to timely access to affordable life-saving medicines, an issue increasingly linked to the right to life and health under Article 21. The second concerns judicial delay, particularly in cases where delayed adjudication may render the relief sought meaningless because of the irreversible consequences suffered by litigants. The Court’s decision signals that procedural delay in matters involving health and survival may itself raise constitutional concerns requiring intervention by the apex court.
The Court has not yet expressed any opinion on whether the Government should issue compulsory or Government Use licences for patented medicines. Instead, the present proceedings are expected to examine the broader legal framework governing affordable access to essential medicines, the balance between patent protection and public health, and the constitutional obligations of the State in ensuring access to life-saving treatment. The notices issued to the Union Government mark the beginning of what could become a landmark examination of the intersection between patent law, healthcare policy and the fundamental right to life.
The case is also likely to influence future litigation involving judicial delays in matters affecting urgent medical treatment. Legal experts observe that the Supreme Court’s suo motu action underscores that justice delayed in life-and-death cases may effectively amount to justice denied. By taking cognisance of both the affordability of essential medicines and the prolonged pendency of proceedings, the Court has indicated that constitutional courts bear a special responsibility to ensure that cases implicating Article 21 are heard and decided with the urgency they demand.
