Discuss the role of suo motu jurisdiction of High Courts in ensuring access to affordable healthcare, citing recent examples.

Suo motu jurisdiction is the power of a constitutional court under Articles 226/32 to initiate proceedings on its own motion, without a petitioner. In healthcare — where patients are dispersed, ill and often unable to litigate — it has become a key instrument for operationalising the right to health read into Article 21, though its reach is bounded by statutory design.

Enabling access: how it works

• Continuity of relief beyond the individual: the Kerala HC converted breast-cancer patient Sarojam Radhakrishnan's plea on the patented drug Ribociclib into a suo motu case, In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines, after her death in September 2022 [1].
• Widening the class of beneficiaries: in August 2026 the Court allowed a new patient from Malappuram to be impleaded, converting a personal grievance into systemic litigation [1].
• Activating a reluctant executive: the Court directed DPIIT to consider a representation for a compulsory licence under Section 84, Patents Act, 1970 — grounds being unaffordable pricing and unmet public requirement [2].
• Marshalling expertise: apex cancer institutes and the DCGI were asked to opine on substituting Palbociclib, embedding scientific evidence in judicial review.
• Addressing catastrophic costs: relevant where out-of-pocket spending, though down to 39.4% of total health expenditure by 2021-22, still burdens households [3].

Limits of the instrument

• Locus standi gap: only a willing generic manufacturer can apply under Section 84; courts cannot themselves grant a licence [2].
• Outcome deficit: no compulsory licence has followed here — India's only granted CL remains Natco v. Bayer (2012) for Sorafenib [4].
• Risks of judicial overreach into executive pricing policy, and relief confined to litigated drugs rather than the whole basket.

Suo motu jurisdiction thus works best as a catalyst — surfacing neglected issues and compelling executive application of mind — rather than as a substitute for policy. Pairing it with a transparent government framework on compulsory licensing, strengthened NPPA price regulation and Ayushman Bharat coverage would convert episodic judicial intervention into durable affordability, giving fuller content to the Article 21 promise of dignified life.