A writ petition for access to a life-saving breast cancer medicine, Ribociclib, filed before Kerala high court in June 2022 has been listed for final hearing 57 times since Jan 21, 2023, without the matter being heard.The working group on access to medicines has written to Chief Justice of India, requesting him to consider steps to expedite the hearing to ensure justice for those who need the medicine urgently.The petitioner died in the early stage of the case, after which the HC decided to continue it suo motu, given the larger public interest.‘Petitioner death exposes cost of judicial delays’The working group comprises patient advocates, patient groups, civil society organisations, academics, and lawyers. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women in India. The Global Cancer Observatory report of 2022 said India reported more than 1.9 lakh new cases and 98,300 deaths. “Official data tabled in Parliament by the ministry of health and family welfare in early Feb 2026 made an estimated projection of 2.4 lakh. Among these, patients with Luminal A (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer, an invasive subtype that can spread to other parts of the body, require targeted medicines, such as Ribociclib and Abemaciclib, to save their lives. These medicines are critical for HR+HER2- patients because these medicines can be used to treat patients at an early stage. However, these medicines are prohibitively expensive as they are under patent protection (Ribociclib is over Rs 78,400 per month and Abemaciclib Rs 47,700 to 95,500 per month),” the letter to the CJI said. The petition sought a govt use licence under Section 100 of Patent Act, which could have enabled access to Ribociclib at affordable prices. “A govt use licence facilitates production of the generic version of the drug locally, and at an affordable price. Often, the price of the generic versions is 90%-95% cheaper than that of the originator. While the govt acknowledged the medicine’s effectiveness, it refused to issue a govt use licence, stating that breast cancer did not constitute a matter of national urgency,” the group explained in the letter. It added that the govt has not provided a reasoned response regarding access to life-saving medicines and the enjoyment of right to health. After deciding to continue the case suo motu, the court appointed an amicus curiae and the various respondents, including the Union of India, filed detailed responses. The manufacturers of the medicine were impleaded and they too filed their responses. The letter pointed out that every stakeholder has been heard and every report sought by the court has been submitted. “The pleadings stand completed. Yet the constitutional questions on the obligations of the govt under Article 21 with regard to access to medicines remain unaddressed,” the letter to the CJI said. “The untimely demise of the petitioner in this matter highlights the devastating human cost of judicial delays in cases involving access to lifesaving drugs,” the letter said, adding that a swift resolution would provide hope to others suffering from the dreaded disease who do not have the means to approach the court.