Kerala High Court intiates suo motu case on unaffordable patented life-saving medicines after petitioner's demise

The Kerala High Court on Friday took suo moto cognizance of the unaffordable nature of patented medicines-life saving character [xxx v. Union of India].Justice VG Arun was considering a plea moved by a woman who was critically ill due to breast cancer when he was informed by her counsel that she had passed away recently. However, advocate Maitreyi Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even though the petitioner is no more, her death should not go in vain.The Court concurred and decided to let the petition continue as a suo motu case to address the significant issue. "I am of the considered opinion, the unfortunate incident should not result in the cause disposed by the petitioner to go in vain. Therefore, the writ petition shall continue on the boards of the court as a matter the court has taken suo moto cognizance of unaffordability of patented medicines-life saving character," the Court said in its order.The court directed the Registry to substitute the petitioner's name as “In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines”..The Court went on to appoint Hegde as amicus curiae in the matter. .The petitioner had been diagnosed with HER2- Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer and was undergoing targeted therapy when she approached the Court raising the issue of the price of a life-saving breast cancer drug, Ribocicilib which costs around ₹58,140.Ribociclib presently enjoys patent monopoly and their manufactures are hence prevented from producing the medicine without the consent of the patent holder, Novartis.It was pointed out that the government can invoke Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970 which provides for compulsory license and Section 100 which empowers the government to requisition life saving medicines in cases of extreme necessity.The inaction by the government in providing access to medication infringes upon the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violates the directive principles of state policy which impose an obligation on the Government to ensure public health, it was contended. Today, Advocate Maitreyi Hegde submitted that none of the orders issued by the court directing the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry to consider compulsory licensing the drug, were honoured by the respondents. .The matter will be taken up next on September 29..[Read Order]