By Shishir Prashant 
PrashantNews
What happens when the medicine that could save your life becomes too expensive to afford? For Sarojam Radhakrishnan, a retired bank employee from Kerala, this was not a theoretical question. It was a painful reality.
Diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021, Sarojam faced recurring monthly bills exceeding ₹63,000 for targeted oncology therapies. The mounting expenses rapidly depleted her family’s savings and pension, turning the fight against cancer into a struggle for financial survival.
In 2022, she approached the Kerala High Court through an individual writ petition, raising a question that extended far beyond her personal circumstances: should access to life-saving medicines be determined by a patient’s ability to pay?
Sarojam passed away in September 2022, while her case was still at an early stage. Ordinarily, the death of a petitioner can raise questions about whether the legal proceedings should continue. But this case presented a concern much larger than the fate of an individual litigant.
The Kerala High Court refused to let the issue end with her death.
Recognising the wider public interest involved, the Court converted the matter into a public interest litigation titled In Re: Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines. What began as one woman’s desperate attempt to challenge the financial burden of cancer treatment thus evolved into a broader examination of medicine pricing, public welfare and the constitutional right to health under Article 21.
The matter took another significant turn on 17 July 2026, when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue. According to reports, Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed shock at alleged markups exceeding 1,000 per cent between the Price to Retailer (PTR) and Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The judges reportedly described the practice in stark terms, using expressions such as “broad daylight dacoity” and “carnage”.
At the heart of the controversy lies a difficult question: how should the law balance pharmaceutical patents and commercial interests against patients’ need for affordable treatment?
Patent protection can encourage medical innovation, but the affordability of essential medicines remains a pressing public concern. When treatment costs threaten to push families into financial distress, the implications extend beyond healthcare to dignity, equality and the meaning of the right to life.
Sarojam did not live to see how her case would unfold. Yet, by refusing to let the issue disappear with its petitioner, the legal process gave her individual struggle a wider significance.
She died. Her case did not. And the question she left behind remains: what does the right to life mean if life-saving treatment is beyond a patient’s means?