The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 21) allowed the petition filed by a breast cancer patient who sought to be impleaded as an additional respondent in a suo motu plea raising issue of exorbitant pricing of patented breast cancer drugs.

The plea was originally filed by a breast cancer patient, who was being treated with patented Ribociclib, seeking an intervention by the Central government invoking the provisions of the Patent Act, particularly Sections 83 and 92 or Section 100. After she passed during pendency of the case, the Court had decided to convert the case into a suo motu petition.

Section 92 provides for compulsory license. Section 83 deals with general principles applicable to working of patented inventions. Section 100 authorises the government to requisition life-saving medicines in cases of extreme necessity "for the purposes of the government".

Last month, after hearing the amicus curiae as well as the counsels for the Union and the drug-manufacturing companies, the Court had sought expert opinion on whether Palbociclib, a cheaper drug that is no longer under patent and is also locally manufactured, can be used as a substitute to patented Ribociclib and Abemaciclib, for treating breast cancer.

It had then suo motu impleaded the National Cancer Institute (Jhajjar), Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (Kolkata), the Regional Cancer Centre (Thiruvananthapuram) and the Drugs Controller General of India as additional respondents in the plea.

Subsequently, an impleading petition was filed by a breast cancer patient, who is presently taking Ribociclib to treat her condition.

When the matter came up today, Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed the impleadment and posted the case to September 3 for final hearing, taking note of the Apex Court's request to expeditiously hear the matter.

Since affidavit was filed only on behalf of the Drugs Controller General, the Court directed the Additional Solicitor General of India P. Sreekumar to liaison with the suo motu impleaded respondents to ensure that they place their affidavits on record by the next posting date.

"In view of the urgency pointed by amicus curiae Smt. Maitreyi as well as in view of the impleadment of an affected party...post the matter for final consideration on 03.09.2026...The ASGI Sri. P. Sreeekumar is directed to liaison with Additional respondents nos. 11, 12 and 13 and ensure that a statement/affidavit is placed on record positively by the next posting. This is especially so, in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court dated 17.7.2026 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2026 as per which the Apex Court has requested this Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously," the Court recorded in the order passed.

The Court also orally said: "We will find a solution…The only question is whether this is a substitute or not. Suppose it is not a substitute, I may, perhaps, issue a direction to the central government."

The Court further recorded a point raised by the amicus curiae that even as per the affidavit filed on behalf by the Drugs Controller, it has not been stated conclusively as to whether "Palbociclib" was a substitute for "Ribociclib". In the affidavit, among other averments, it was stated that opinion on the therapeutical interchangeability of the two drugs for a particular patient is to be rendered by the treating doctor or oncologist.

Last month, the co-convenors of the Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment had written a letter to the Chief Justice seeking intervention for expeditious final hearing of the plea. A copy of the same was addressed to the Chief Justice of India as well.

Case Title: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines

Amicus curiae: Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde

Counsel for the respondents: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Joseph Kodianthra (Sr.), Hemant Singh (Sr.), P. Sreekumar - ASGI, O.M. Shalina - DSGI