1Research Scholar, School of Law, Sandip University. Email: ruchirathi1610@gmail.com
2Research Guide, School of Law, Sandip University
The intersection of pharmaceutical patents and the Right to Health in India presents a complex legal and ethical dilemma between intellectual property protection and public welfare. This study critically examines the judicial interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life, encompassing access to affordable healthcare and essential medicines. Through landmark judgments such as Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) and Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (2013), the Indian judiciary has emphasized the primacy of human rights over monopolistic patent interests. The paper explores how courts have balanced innovation incentives with societal health needs by restricting "evergreening" practices and upholding compulsory licensing provisions. By analyzing the evolving jurisprudence and policy implications, the research underscores the judiciary's pivotal role in harmonizing India's commitments under TRIPS with its constitutional obligation to ensure equitable access to life-saving drugs for all citizens.
Keywords: Right to Health, Pharmaceutical Patents, Judicial Interpretation, Compulsory Licensing, TRIPS Agreement.
How to cite this article: Dinesh RR, Deshmukh NS. Pharmaceutical Patents and the Right to Health: A Judicial Perspective in India. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(10s): 894-901; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.10s.104
Source of support: Nil.
Conflict of interest: None