Kerala High Court Rules Centre Can Use Section 100 of Patents Act for Affordable Life-Saving Drugs
_1943463318.jpg)
In a landmark judicial pronouncement addressing the staggering cost of critical healthcare, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the Central Government holds the legal authority under Section 100 of the Patents Act to intervene and authorize the production of affordable generic versions of excessively priced patented drugs. Hearing a public interest matter stemming from a prolonged legal battle over advanced cancer therapeutics, the bench emphasized that the state cannot remain a silent spectator when life-saving medications are priced completely out of reach for ordinary citizens.
The Legal Battle: Exorbitant Cancer Drug Prices and Section 100 Powers
The crucial legal questions arose from a petition originally filed in 2022 regarding prohibitive treatment costs:
High Cost of Ribociclib: The litigation centered on the patented breast cancer drug ribociclib, which costs upwards of ₹58,000 for a 21-day course and approaches nearly ₹7.9 lakh annually, alongside other expensive inhibitors like abemaciclib.
Tragic Turn in Proceedings: The original petitioner, a cancer survivor, tragically passed away during the protracted proceedings after the matter was listed numerous times without final resolution. Consequently, Justice Harishankar V. Menon's single bench converted the case into a public interest initiative to protect wider societal welfare.
Dismissing Narrow Legal Interpretations: The court firmly rejected arguments advanced by central authorities and pharmaceutical corporations claiming that Section 100 restricts government intervention strictly to direct state consumption, ruling instead that subsections (4) and (6) empower third-party manufacturing on a non-commercial basis to serve public health needs.
Slashing Costs Through Generic Alternatives: 90 to 95 Percent Cheaper
Advocacy groups and legal experts have long maintained that invoking compulsory licensing or government use provisions can drastically alleviate patient financial burdens:
Massive Price Reduction: Issuing government licenses allows domestic generic manufacturers to produce critical formulations at a fraction of patent-protected market prices—typically 90 to 95 percent cheaper.
Challenging Prior Executive Stances: While previous government positions resisted granting licenses on grounds that specific conditions like breast cancer did not constitute a national emergency, the court's interpretation broadens the scope of welfare state obligations.
Clinical Distinctions Recognized: The court also clarified clinical efficacy parameters, noting that patented cancer medications like ribociclib and palbociclib serve distinct therapeutic stages and cannot be treated as direct substitutes for one another.
A Poignant Reminder: Three Decades of Unchanged Ground Realities
In a moving concluding observation, the High Court referenced the acclaimed Malayalam film Sukrutham, scripted by M.T. Vasudevan Nair, which detailed the profound financial and emotional struggles of families battling cancer. The bench lamented that despite three decades passing since the film's release, the crushing economic reality of affording advanced medical treatment for ordinary patients remains largely unchanged, reinforcing the urgent need for proactive government intervention in public healthcare.
_1735186424_351x234.jpg)
_2130631853_351x234.jpg)
_1229491019_351x234.jpg)
_1116272614_351x234.jpg)
_856785626_351x234.jpg)