Access to affordable healthcare is intrinsic to the Right to Life under Article 21. Discuss with reference to recent judicial observations on drug pricing.

The Supreme Court has long read the right to health into the right to life under Article 21. In September 2026, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta gave this principle sharp content, terming the overpricing of essential cancer drugs a "broad daylight dacoity" on patients [1].

Affordability as a facet of Article 21

• A right to health is hollow if the prescribed medicine is unaffordable; catastrophic health expenditure pushes families into poverty.
• Out-of-pocket expenditure fell from 62.6% (2014-15) to 39.4% (2021-22) of total health spending as government health spending rose from 29% to 48% [4] — progress that inflated drug MRPs can erode.
• Inflated MRPs also defraud the public exchequer, since reimbursement under schemes like Ayushman Bharat–PMJAY is taxpayer-funded [1].

The judicial observation and what it exposed

• The Court flagged a cancer medicine supplied to retailers at ₹2,700 but printed with an MRP of ₹27,000, questioning why MRP should be "unlimited", and criticised regulatory silence [1].
• The markup lies in the trade margin, not manufacturing cost — yet the price-to-stockist data needed to prove it is not publicly disclosed [3].

The regulatory gap

• Under DPCO, 2013 (Essential Commodities Act, 1955), NPPA fixes ceiling prices only for scheduled drugs; non-scheduled medicines — most of the market — face only a 10% annual hike cap, not launch-price control [3].
• Caps also erode: stent prices rose 44% (bare metal) and 29% (drug-eluting) between 2017 and 2024 despite control [3].

Way forward

• Trade Margin Rationalisation works: a 30% margin cap on 42 anti-cancer drugs cut MRPs of 526 brands by about half, saving patients roughly ₹984 crore annually [2].
• The Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilisers (December 2025) urged amending DPCO to give TMR permanent legal backing, extend NPPA oversight to non-scheduled formulations, and study the PTS–MRP gap [3].

Judicial remarks at the hearing stage can prompt, but not substitute for, executive reform. Pairing a permanent margin-rationalisation power with wider generic supply through Jan Aushadhi and sustained public health spending would convert Article 21's promise into affordable treatment at the counter, advancing SDG-3 on universal health coverage.