Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and other high-ranking church leaders and campaigners have welcomed the ruling from the Madras High Court today that dismissed the challenge from the Swiss pharmaceutical giant, Novartis, on the constitutionality of India's patent law.

"This legal ruling reflects what we know in our hearts - that our society's priority must be people's health, not extra profits from patents for rich corporations", Archbishop Tutu stated.

Novartis had filed a petition with the high court challenging the constitutionality of Indian patent law after the Indian Patent Controller's Office had refused to grant a patent for its cancer medicine, Glivec.

The Glivec application was rejected on the grounds that the medicine was simply a new form of an old medicine with a trivial change, something which cannot be patented under Indian law.

Bishop Yvon Ambroise, of the Commission for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Bishop's Conference of India observed, "This ruling rightly upholds the principle that trivial changes made to a drug which do not make it more effective, do not warrant additional patent protection.

"The decision puts people's access to affordable medicines first, over additional corporate profits on non-essential changes."

In rejecting Novartis' challenge to Indian patent law, the court noted it had no jurisdiction to rule on the compliance of Indian law to the World Trade Organisation's intellectual property rules.

Campaigners had indeed argued that it was inappropriate for a corporation to try to challenge inter-governmental rules in this way.

The decision potentially could have affected the generic manufacture of thousands of other medicines in India that has made essential medicines available not only to those not able to afford branded medicines in India, but around the world.

Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in welcoming the High Court's decision, said, "Even more important than this decision on a particular case is the principle it sets - patents must be granted in a way that balances public health and real innovation."

The case is relevant for putting existing medicines to new uses. Dr Eva Ombaka, coordinator of the Ecumenical Pharmaceutical Network, said that, potentially, HIV patients had the most to lose. "Effective anti-retroviral drugs are combinations of existing drugs. A ruling in favour of Novartis would have meant new patents on existing chemical entities.

"This would have prevented manufacture of affordable generic alternatives of second line antiretroviral drugs combinations."

She concluded, "Thank God public health has won over private interest of corporations!"

In an initial statement, Novartis said it was unlikely to appeal against the ruling. An appeal to the patent decision is still pending before India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

Church leaders and campaigners indicate the need for supporters of public health to remain active and vigilant to counter efforts that would further limit access to essential medicines - in India and elsewhere.

Prawate Khid-arn, General Secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia, stated, "We need to continue to support the Indian government and other governments and organisations in such efforts that support public health, and campaign against actions that will limit people's access to the medicines they need for health - and even life."

Rev Dr Ishmael Noko, General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, concluded, "The bottom line for us is access to essential medicines for all - especially those living in poverty who are more vulnerable to disease and ill health.

"This ruling is one step towards affirming existing limitations on patent protection that will help keep many medicines affordable.

"But we need to go farther in developing alternatives to the current system for essential medicines."