1. Petition under Article 32 challenging the requirement of domicile certificates for registration in cadaver transplant registries under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1848
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Gift of Life Adventure Foundation – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 32106 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Mohini Priya, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Mohini Priya, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The Court emphasized the need for the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to address the grievance regarding the domicile certificate requirement for organ transplantation registration.
Headnote:
Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994 - Domicile Certificate Requirement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution regarding the imposition of a domicile certificate requirement for registering organ transplantation under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to examine the grievance and take a policy decision to remedy the issue.
Issues: Imposition of domicile certificate requirement for registering organ transplantation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found it appropriate for the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to examine the matter and make a policy decision to address the grievance expeditiously.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and any pending application was also disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Requirement of domicile certificates for organ transplantation registration in various States is an improper imposition on patients. (Para 3 )
3. The grievance regarding domicile certificate requirements for organ transplantation registration warrants examination and a policy decision by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (Para 4 )
4. Policy-related grievances concerning the implementation of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act may be referred to the Union Ministry for examination and remedy. (Para 4 )
5. Petitioner permitted to submit a representation to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for policy examination; petition disposed of. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the court's approach to grievances regarding domicile certificate requirements for organ transplantation registration?
The court held that such grievances should be examined by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to determine the appropriate policy decision and course of action to remedy the issue. (Para 4 )
7. What remedy did the court grant to the petitioner regarding the cadaver transplant registry requirements?
The court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Secretary in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for examination and a policy decision. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking diverse reliefs in the context of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994, which was enacted on 8 July 1994 with the object of regulating the removal and transplantation of human organs. The Transplantation of Human Organs Rules 1995 were notified in February 1995 and have since been replaced by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules 2014.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the requirement of obtaining a domicile certificate for registering an organ transplantation is being imposed by many States, in terms of which patients have to submit a domicile certificate, if they wish to register in the cadaver transplant registry.
4. Having due regard to the above grievance, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the matter is examined by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. We permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the Secretary in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The matter may be examined at an appropriate level and a policy decision taken on the appropriate course of action to be adopted to remedy the grievance expeditiously.
5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
