A breast cancer patient passed away during a prolonged court battle for affordable medicine access, which has seen 57 listings since 2022. The case highlights systemic delays in judiciary processes regarding patented drug pricing.
The Kerala High Court is currently under public scrutiny regarding the slow pace of a high-stakes case concerning the affordability of life-saving breast cancer medications. The litigation, which centered on enabling access to expensive, patented treatments, has been listed for hearing at least 57 times over the past four years without reaching a final judgment. Tragically, the original petitioner who initiated the legal struggle for affordable healthcare passed away before the court could deliver a verdict.
Impact of Patent Protection on Treatment Costs
At the heart of the matter are medications such as Ribociclib and Abemaciclib. These drugs are critical for specific breast cancer treatments but remain prohibitively expensive for many patients due to patent protections. Current pricing for Ribociclib is approximately ₹78,468 per month, while Abemaciclib costs can range between ₹47,752 and ₹95,504 per month. Because these medicines are under patent, generic manufacturers are restricted from producing lower-cost versions, leaving patients dependent on the patent holders' pricing structures. The legal proceedings aimed to challenge this status quo to improve medical accessibility.
Administrative Challenges in the Judiciary
Legal advocates from the Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment recently submitted a formal representation to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court on July 10, 2026. The communication detailed significant administrative hurdles, noting that the case has been heard by eight different judges since its inception in 2022. A key hearing scheduled for January 2023 was derailed due to a roster change, contributing to the list of roughly 40 separate adjournments.
Although the Court took the initiative to convert the matter into a suo motu case—meaning it is being pursued on the court's own authority due to its significant public interest—the repetitive marking of the case for disposal throughout 2025 and 2026 has yielded no concrete outcome.
Broader Implications for Public Health Litigation
This case has broader implications for how Indian courts handle public health crises and the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. By failing to reach a timely resolution, the ongoing delay underscores the difficulties patients face when navigating the legal system to address the high costs of essential medical treatments. As the case is currently listed for July 15, 2026, observers are monitoring whether the court will finally prioritize a decisive judgment to address the long-standing pricing concerns that affect thousands of patients nationwide.