The SARS-CoV-2 infection has resulted in massive loss of valuable human lives, extensive destruction of livelihoods and financial crisis of unprecedented levels across the globe. Kerala, a province in India, like the rest of the country, launched preventive and control measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 early in 2020. The Government of Kerala started 1206 Ayur Raksha Clinics and associated Task Forces across the state in April 2020 to improve the reach and penetration of Ayurvedic preventive, therapeutic and convalescent care strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation framework of the strategy was properly designed, and had a decentralized, people-centered, and participatory approach. Kerala has robust public health machinery with adequate human resource and infrastructure in the conventional medicine sector. This community case study examines how the decentralized organizational framework was effectively utilized for facilitating the delivery of Ayurvedic services in the COVID-19 situation. Key observations from the study are: Ayurvedic programs implemented systematically, under an organized framework with social participation enables wider utilization of the services. Such a framework is easily replicable even in resource-poor settings. Rather than a pluralistic approach, an integrative health system approach may be more viable in the Kerala scenario in public health emergencies.

The Indian Supreme Court in a landmark judgment on 1 April 2013 dismissed the plea of Novartis AG for grant of patent for the beta crystalline form of Imatinib mesylate. The Court did not find the product to have satisfied the relevant provisions of patentability laid down in the Indian Patents Act. Patents for pharmaceutical products have always triggered intense debate in India and other developing countries. The Indian Patent laws are fully compliant with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). This article through the lens of the Court verdict analyses whether there was any real enhancement in therapeutic efficacy of the product as claimed by Novartis and whether Novartis resorted to evergreening. The article dwells on the possible implications of the judgment on investments in India; and innovations in research and development in the pharmaceutical sector. The article further observes that the Court has, while upholding the public health agenda of the state, judiciously interpreted the statutory provisions governing the grant of intellectual property rights for pharmaceutical products in India, in the patient versus patent debate.