E-Paper
SC to look into affordable access to life-saving cancer medicines
The Supreme Court on Friday said it will examine the broader issue of affordable access to life-saving cancer medicines and judicial delays in cases involving the right to health, expressing concern that a breast cancer patient’s petition remained pending before the Kerala high court despite being listed 57 times before her death
The Supreme Court on Friday said it will examine the broader issue of affordable access to life-saving cancer medicines and judicial delays in cases involving the right to health, expressing concern that a breast cancer patient’s petition remained pending before the Kerala high court despite being listed 57 times before her death.
Issuing notice in a suo motu case, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said repeated listings without an effective hearing prompted the top court to step in.
“Initially, we were reluctant of taking it up suo motu, but then we noticed reports that it was listed for 57 times but was not being decided...that concerned us,” the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, said.
The proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court on the basis of a letter petition seeking affordable access to breast cancer medicines.
Advocate Aljo Joseph, appearing for the Kerala government, said the patient had passed away and that the state had eventually provided the medication.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, seeking to assist the court, said he had been appearing for the deceased patient’s husband before the Kerala high court, but urged the Supreme Court to expand the scope of the proceedings nationwide.
“I have been appearing for the husband of the deceased before the high court but the issue there is limited. I would urge this court to take it up and look at the issue from a pan-India perspective,” Grover said.
Highlighting the affordability crisis surrounding patented cancer drugs, Grover said the issue extended well beyond an individual case.
“This is a huge problem. Most new medicines for cancer are patented. They are unaffordable...The government has power under the Patents Act to compulsorily license them... but only one licence has been issued since 2005. That too in a private dispute,” Grover said.
Joseph, however, said the high court had already converted the matter into a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) and was monitoring the issue on a regular basis.
The Chief Justice of India said the Supreme Court’s concern was not with the high court’s jurisdiction, but with the delay in deciding the original petition.
When Joseph added that the medicines had been supplied after a new government assumed office in the state, the bench indicated its intent to address broader systemic concerns.
“We will take up the larger issue,” the bench said, before issuing notice and requesting the chief justice of the Kerala high court to ensure that the proceedings before the high court are decided expeditiously.
The suo motu proceedings stem from an ongoing case before the Kerala high court concerning access to Ribociclib, a patented medicine used in the treatment of HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
The original writ petition was filed in June 2022 by a breast cancer patient seeking access to the drug, which then cost around ₹58,000 per month. Court records showed the petition was listed for final hearing 57 times between January 2023 and this year, but could not be heard before the petitioner died.
Following her death, the high court converted the matter into a suo motu PIL, recognising the public importance of affordable access to cancer treatment. It is currently examining whether Ribociclib and the comparatively cheaper Palbociclib can be treated as substitutes.
The high court has sought reports from the National Cancer Institute, Jhajjar; the Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Kolkata; the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram; and the Drug Controller General of India.
The case also raises questions over the use of compulsory licensing provisions under the Patents Act 1970 to improve access to expensive patented medicines. While petitioners have urged the government to invoke these powers or intervene to reduce prices, pharmaceutical companies maintain that compulsory licensing is unwarranted and alternative therapies are already available.
