Supreme Court Flags Cost Of Cancer Drugs
This is not the first time the issue of the high cost of cancer treatment in India has surfaced and questioned the right to health in the constitution and the government’s duty to provide affordable medicines to the people. The matter had come to the fore when the Supreme Court had taken note of the huge difference between the prices of medicines supplied to retail outlets and MRP levied on patients.
On September 29, 2026, a bench of Supreme Court Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta considered a petition raised on the issue of heavy margins on medicines. The Court was told that there is a cancer drug being provided to the retailer at a value of around ₹2,700 but having a maximum retail price of almost ₹27,000.
The Court posed whether tougher regulation is needed to stop patients from being charged vastly inflated prices for crucial treatment. This case involves all three petitions seeking tighter regulation of medicine prices including those in hospital pharmacy sales.
Government Caps Trade Margins on 137 Cancer Drugs
A nationwide win On October 17, 2026, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority revealed new trade margin caps for 137 non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines. The rationale behind the government’s decision was to bring down exorbitant margins and make cancer drugs more accessible.
As per the new agreement, the trade margins for the mentioned drugs will be restricted to 30% over the rate at the first point of sale, as defined under the notified mechanism. The new maximum retail price will be effective from November 9, 2026.
The medicines included some vital cancer drugs. A government spokesperson said the scheme could slash up to 70% from the maximum retail price, depending on the pricing arrangements of individual products.
Need Help With Your PhD or LLM Thesis?
Explore our thesis and dissertation writing support services for PhD and LLM students. Get subject-specific academic assistance for your research project.
Explore Our Services →The announcement comes in the wake of the government decision recently to extend price protection for cancer medicines. The amount of reduction in prices will differ and it does not imply that all the cancer medicines available in India will be 70% cheaper.
Does Article 21 Include the Right to Affordable Healthcare?
Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has evolved that right to life is inclusive of medical treatment and healthcare.
The Supreme Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) said that it is the duty of the government to make available proper health facilities. It also clarified that a delay by a government hospital in providing a sick person, who needs medical attention, amounts to a violation of Article 21.
A similar position was taken in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) where the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to health to be a facet of the right to life. Such rulings have made it clear that access to healthcare is not just a matter of policy but also a constitutional one.
As the Delhi High Court has observed in Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) v. Union of India (2014) several patients resort to procuring expensive medicines. It was held that the access to life saving medicines was part of the obligation of the state to protect the right to health and that in case medicines are out of reach in terms of price, then they would be rendered out of reach in effect.
The judgments give constitutional ground to an enquiry as to whether government action is sufficient to secure access to treatment. However, Article 21 does not itself direct a maximum price limit for the medicines for cancer, and does not in all circumstances make free medicine delivery necessary.
How Are Cancer Medicine Prices Regulated in India?
The main regulation governing medicine pricing is the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, which is made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority administers key components of the regulation.
Schedule I medicines will also have ceiling prices fixed by the government. These medicines will be notified based on the national list of essential medicines. Scheduled formulations will be available from manufacturers at or below the ceiling price along with permissible taxes.
Non-scheduled drugs are usually not covered under the usual ceiling-price mechanism. Still, DPCO puts some limits on raising their maximum retail prices and grants some powers for their regulation in defined situations.
The issue itself has been at the heart of the controversy. Petitioners before the Supreme Court have contended that giving manufacturers the power to set the initial price of many non-scheduled medicines could lead to exorbitant retail prices, even if subsequent annual increases are limited.
The government announced to Parliament in March 2026 that ceiling prices for 131 scheduled anticancer formulations had been implemented. The October 2026 trade margin intervention provides further protection for 137 identified non-scheduled cancer medicines.
Can Courts Direct the Government to Strengthen Price Regulation?
These courts can assess if the action or omissions of state authorities breaches the right to health, (Article 21). Courts might compel authorities to implement appropriate legal obligations, make decisions within legal competences and undo unlawful or arbitrary decisions.
But courts are generally less willing to directly formulate detailed policies and thus imposing enforcement of constitutional duties. Price regulation of medicines may depend on cost of production, supply, cost of research, marketing considerations and risk of shortage of supply.
This dichotomy is especially important in cancer treatment; excessively high prices may not allow some patients to afford drugs, but badly designed price controls can lead to shortages of specific medicines.
In June 2026, the NPPA doubled the ceiling prices of two platinum-based cancer medicines, citing the increased raw material prices resulted in a shortage. This highlights that price regulation needs to take in to account not only affordability but also availability of the product. .
The constitutional question is therefore not just whether medicines ought to be more affordable. It is also whether access to treatment is reasonable and effective under the regulatory scheme within the powers of Parliament and existing law.
The Impact of Stronger Regulation for Cancer Patients
This new step by the government is to penalise the excessive margins charged for cancer medicines. The effectiveness of this measure will however depend on the prices notified by the manufacturers, hospitals and pharmacies’ compliance and NPPA’s enforcement.
While patients may see the prices of medicines coming down, cancer treatment is not only about medicines. There are diagnostic tests, hospitals, surgery, radiotherapy and various other costs. Therefore, just regulating the prices of medicines may not be enough to reduce this burden.
This argument among the courts brings the focus back to the issue of constitutional rights versus actual access to healthcare. Article 21 ensures a strong starting point to decide whether there is meaningful access to appropriate treatment, but the DPCO and other regulation can bring down the cost of medicine.
The Supreme Court’s review of medicine pricing and the government’s October 2026 ruling will continue to be a significant milestone in understanding how India must balance the costs of fighting cancer, regulation of pharmaceuticals and the constitutional guarantee of life and health.
