Case listed 57 times, litigant dead: Letter to Kerala HC CJ flags delays in case concerning life-saving cancer drugs

A recent letter to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court has brought to light the profound human cost of judicial delays, specifically in a case concerning access to life-saving breast cancer drugs. Despite being converted into a *suo motu* public interest litigation after the original litigant, a cancer patient, passed away, the matter has been listed at least 57 times over several years without a final decision. This egregious delay underscores systemic issues within the Indian judiciary, particularly concerning the timely adjudication of cases impacting fundamental rights such as the right to health and life. The incident highlights the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure expeditious justice, especially in matters of public health where delays can have fatal consequences.

The Indian legal landscape is frequently lauded for its robust constitutional protections, yet the efficacy of these safeguards is often undermined by persistent judicial delays. A recent and deeply concerning development from the Kerala High Court has cast a stark light on this critical challenge. A letter addressed to Chief Justice Soumen Sen has detailed the tragic trajectory of a case concerning access to expensive patented breast cancer medicines, revealing that the original litigant, a cancer patient, died months into the litigation. Despite the High Court converting the matter into a *suo motu* public interest litigation (PIL) due to its significant public interest, the case has been listed an astonishing 57 times over several years, repeatedly marked 'FOR DISPOSAL,' yet remains unadjudicated.

This particular instance is not merely an isolated procedural anomaly; it represents a profound failure of the justice delivery system to uphold the fundamental right to life and health, especially for vulnerable citizens. The untimely demise of the petitioner, exacerbated by the protracted legal process, serves as a poignant reminder of the devastating human cost associated with judicial inefficiency. The case compels a critical examination of the mechanisms intended to ensure speedy justice and highlights the urgent imperative for systemic reforms to prevent such tragedies from recurring, thereby honouring the memory of the deceased litigant and benefiting countless others facing similar predicaments.

The right to health, though not explicitly enumerated as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court as an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21. Landmark judgments such as *Parmanand Katara v. Union of India* (1989) established the paramount importance of preserving human life and the state's obligation to provide immediate medical aid. Further, in *Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal* (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed that the failure of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment constitutes a violation of Article 21, emphasizing the state's constitutional duty to provide adequate medical services.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) emerged as a crucial tool in India to enforce fundamental rights for those unable to approach the courts directly, relaxing the traditional rule of *locus standi*. Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, are empowered to entertain PILs and even take *suo motu* cognizance of matters based on letters or media reports, particularly when public interest or human rights violations are involved. This judicial activism aims to ensure justice for the marginalized and to address systemic issues. Concurrently, India's patent regime, governed by the Patents Act, 1970, has evolved to balance innovation incentives with public health needs, incorporating provisions like compulsory licensing (Sections 84 and 92) to ensure access to essential medicines, especially when patented drugs are unaffordable or unavailable.

The case in the Kerala High Court starkly illustrates the chasm between constitutional ideals and practical realities. The conversion of the matter into a *suo motu* PIL after the litigant's death was a commendable exercise of judicial power, intended to address a systemic issue affecting public health. However, the subsequent listing of the case 57 times, with repeated adjournments and designations 'FOR DISPOSAL' without final adjudication, undermines the very purpose of *suo motu* action and PILs. This protracted delay directly impinges on the fundamental right to speedy justice, which the Supreme Court, in *Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar* (1979), unequivocally declared to be an integral part of Article 21.

The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted the adverse impact of judicial delays on public confidence and the rule of law. The present scenario in Kerala echoes the concerns raised in various judicial pronouncements regarding the staggering backlog of cases and the need for efficient case management. While High Courts have rules governing case filing, interlocutory applications, and adjournments to promote efficiency, the sheer number of listings in this case suggests a failure in adhering to the spirit of these rules or a systemic inability to prioritize critical matters. The Supreme Court's recent guidelines, directing High Courts to deliver reserved judgments within three months and prioritize urgent matters like bail applications for same-day or next-day pronouncements, underscore the judiciary's own recognition of the urgency required in certain cases.

Moreover, the case touches upon the delicate balance between intellectual property rights and the right to health. While the Patents Act, 1970, includes mechanisms like compulsory licensing to ensure access to essential medicines, judicial delays in adjudicating such matters can render these safeguards ineffective, particularly for patients whose lives depend on timely access to treatment. The failure to expedite a decision in a case concerning life-saving cancer drugs sends a chilling message about the accessibility of justice for those most in need. This situation calls for a re-evaluation of judicial processes, including stricter adherence to timelines, proactive case management by the registry and benches, and perhaps even specialized fast-track mechanisms for public health-related PILs.

The protracted delay in the Kerala High Court case concerning access to life-saving cancer drugs, culminating in the litigant's death and the continued deferral of a final decision, serves as a stark and tragic illustration of the critical need for judicial reform in India. It underscores that justice delayed is indeed justice denied, particularly when fundamental rights to life and health are at stake. The incident highlights the urgent necessity for the judiciary to not only acknowledge but actively implement measures to ensure expeditious adjudication, especially in matters of profound public interest and human consequence.

For legal practitioners, this case is a potent reminder to strategically emphasize the urgency and public interest dimensions of their matters, utilizing available procedural tools like interlocutory applications for expedited hearings. Beyond individual advocacy, the legal fraternity must continue to advocate for systemic changes, including enhanced judicial accountability, robust case management systems, and the greater integration of technology to streamline court processes. The Kerala High Court, and indeed the entire Indian judiciary, must critically examine its internal mechanisms to prevent such egregious delays, ensuring that the constitutional promise of justice is not merely an abstract ideal but a tangible reality for all citizens, particularly those whose lives hang in the balance.