Examine the tension between intellectual property protection and the constitutional right to health in India, with reference to patented life-saving medicines.

Article 21 makes access to healthcare a facet of the right to life, while the Patents Act, 1970 grants inventors a 20-year monopoly. The conflict is sharpest in patented cancer drugs, as the Kerala High Court's suo motu Ribociclib pricing case shows, where another breast cancer patient was impleaded in August 2026 [5].

The case for patent protection

• Exclusivity funds high-risk pharmaceutical R&D; a TRIPS-compliant regime since 2005 underpins India's credibility as global supplier of medicines.
• The Doha Declaration (2001) itself keeps this balance — TRIPS "does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health" [2].

The right-to-health counterweight

• Courts read Article 21 as imposing a positive duty of medical aid (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, 1996); an unaffordable patented drug converts a right into a purchasing power question.
• Monthly regimens costing tens of thousands of rupees push households into catastrophic health expenditure, given India's high out-of-pocket share.

Where the tension actually bites

• Section 84 permits a compulsory licence (CL) where the invention is unaffordable, public requirements unmet, or not worked in India; Section 92 allows government use in national emergency [1].
• Yet only one CL has ever been granted — Natco Pharma, 2012, for a cancer drug [3] — signalling a remedy more theoretical than practical.
• Locus standi practically rests with a willing generic manufacturer, so patients must route claims through PILs; the Kerala HC could only direct DPIIT to consider a CL [5].
• Price regulation offers a softer lever: NPPA capped trade margins on 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines, cutting MRPs by about half [4].

The choice is not innovation versus access but sequencing both. Time-bound disposal of CL applications, credible Form 27 working disclosures, wider NLEM price coverage, and standing for affected patients can make statutory flexibilities real — aligning Article 21 with SDG-3's promise of affordable essential medicines.