Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of matter regarding access to life-saving medicines
The matter relates to a woman in Kerala, who was suffering from breast cancer and had moved the State High Court challenging the exorbitant prices of medicine for treatment. She died during the pendency of the plea in the high court.
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The has taken suo motu cognisance (acting on its own accord) of a case concerning the exorbitant pricing of life-saving cancer drugs and the resulting delays in judicial redressal. This action stems from a case initially filed in the by a breast cancer patient who passed away while her plea against the high cost of patented medicines was pending. The High Court had already converted the matter into a suo motu public interest litigation titled 'In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines', highlighting the conflict between intellectual property rights and the fundamental right to health.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This case brings into sharp focus the interpretation of [Article 21] of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The judiciary has consistently expanded the scope of to include the Right to Health and access to medical care. The 's intervention underscores that the inability to afford life-saving medicines due to exorbitant pricing can be a violation of this fundamental right. Furthermore, the use of suo motu cognisance by both the High Court and the Supreme Court demonstrates judicial activism, where courts proactively step in to protect public interest, especially for vulnerable citizens who may lack the resources for protracted legal battles. This highlights the judiciary's role as the guardian of fundamental rights when statutory mechanisms or market forces fail to ensure equitable access to essential services.
Governance
The core governance issue here is the tension between encouraging innovation through the [Patents Act, 1970] and ensuring public health security. Patented drugs are often priced exorbitantly to recoup research and development costs, putting them out of reach for many patients in developing countries like India. The government has mechanisms to intervene, such as issuing compulsory licenses under the , which allows generic manufacturers to produce the drug without the patent holder's consent, typically in cases of national emergency or extreme urgency, or if the drug is not available at a reasonably affordable price. The also regulates the prices of essential medicines listed in the [National List of Essential Medicines]. The court's involvement suggests that current regulatory frameworks may be insufficient or too slow to address the urgent needs of patients requiring life-saving, newly patented treatments, demanding a more robust policy response.
Social
From a social perspective, the exorbitant pricing of critical medicines exacerbates existing health inequalities. The tragic death of the petitioner while her case was pending highlights the human cost of these systemic issues and the critical need for expeditious justice in matters of life and death. The high out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare in India is a major cause of impoverishment, pushing families into debt. While schemes like [Ayushman Bharat] aim to provide health coverage, they may not cover all high-end or newly patented treatments. This case emphasizes the urgent need for a more comprehensive social safety net and systemic reforms to ensure that the Right to Health is not merely theoretical but practically accessible to all citizens, regardless of their economic status.