Centre can intervene if patented drugs are beyond people’s reach, says Kerala High Court

Kochi: The Centre can intervene when the price of life-saving medicines puts them beyond the reach of ordinary people, even if the drugs are protected by patents, the Kerala High Court observed.

Holding that every patent is subject to the right to protect public health, the court noted that Section 100 of the Patents Act empowers the government to manufacture such medicines itself or through other agencies and sell them on a non-profit basis. The court also directed the government to collect data on patients unable to access essential medicines because of their high prices and decide, based on the findings, whether to invoke the special powers available under the Patents Act.

Justice Harishankar V Menon made the observations while disposing of a petition challenging the high price of ribociclib, a drug used to treat breast cancer.

The issue was brought before the court in 2022 by Sarojam, a retired bank employee from Thrippunithura who had been undergoing cancer treatment. At the time, a 21-day course of the drug cost ₹58,140. Sarojam died while the case was pending, but the court continued the proceedings on its own. Her husband Radhakrishnan and some other patients later joined the case as parties.

Amicus curiae advocate Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde told the court that 80,000 people died of cancer in the country in 2024. Medicines account for 36% of treatment costs, she said, adding that 40% of patients borrow money to meet their treatment expenses.

The court also rejected the Centre’s argument that palbociclib, whose patent has expired, could be used as an alternative to ribociclib. The pharmaceutical company, meanwhile, submitted that it had spent crores of rupees on research and development and that patients could opt for other medicines.

Three decades on, Mammootty's ‘Sukrutham’ dialogue still rings true

The court also referred to the monologue delivered by Mammootty’s character in the film 'Sukrutham', observing that it remains a poignant portrayal of the plight of cancer patients. The monologue deals with the financial burden of treatment and how families can be pushed into debt.

Even three decades after the film was released, the situation has not changed, the court observed.