The Kerala High Court has allowed a breast cancer patient from Malappuram to be impleaded in a petition considering the issue of the ‘exorbitant’ price of ‘life-saving’ breast cancer medication, Ribociclib.

The petition was initially filed by another patient diagnosed with HR Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer. She was taking Ribociclib for her condition, but had passed away while the case was pending before court. Her petition sought directives to the government to take over the medication’s patent and make it available at the lowest price possible. The court had then taken up the matter suo motu, considering the larger public interest.

Justice Harishankar V. Menon found that since the current person was also suffering from breast cancer and taking Ribociclib, she could be added as a party to the case.

Court directive

The court directed the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Jhajjar; Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (CNCI), Kolkata; Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram; and the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI); to check whether Palbociclib, the cheaper alternative suggested by pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis AG – the major producers of the costly medication– could be used in place of Ribociclib. The pharma companies had earlier argued against declaring Ribociclib an essential product because Palbociclib was being used as a cheaper alternative across the country.

DCGI report

The DCGI reported to the court that according to the records available with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), Palbociclib and Ribociclib had been approved for similar purposes. But only a doctor or oncologist could decide whether the two medications were interchangeable.

However, the amicus curiae appointed in the case pointed out that the DCGI had not conclusively stated that Palbociclib was a substitute for Ribociclib. She argued that the CDSCO’s data showed that Palbociclib and Ribociclib were not approved for the same stages of the disease. The amicus curiae had contended that the clinical and toxicological profiles were different and the drugs should not be substituted.

Published - August 23, 2026 07:54 pm IST