K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. In conflict is the law, when the petitioners attempt to bring into confluence the profoundest of all human emotions “sacrifice” and the urge innate in every living being to live on. The petitioners in these 16 writ petitions are all persons who are disabled with renal complaints and need, according to their doctors, kidney transplantation. The writ petitions seek permission to make publications in print media, seeking a kidney from willing altruistic donors from the public. This Court has been permitting such publications by orders looking into the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for brevity the Act) finding that such publication is not prohibited by law so long as it does not invite supply for payment or offers such supply or indicate willingness to initiate or negotiate any arrangement, looking at Section 19 (1)(f).

2. I was cautioned by the submission, of a learned Government Pleader in one of such cases; relating to transplant of organs, that though the publications may not have an indication explicitly; it could lead to a payment or arrangement; which by law has been prohibited by the Act. There are no safeguards to prohibit commercial dealings in human organs and tissues once the publication has been permitted; was the compelling argument. Looking into the orders passed, this Court finds that there is no declaration of law and if there had been, there was no requirement for the subsequent, frequent petitions.

3. On being so cautioned, this Court had proposed a hearing on the aspect, and had also impleaded the Nodal Officer, Kerala Network for Organ Sharing (KNOS), which is in charge of the Deceased Donor Multi Organ Transplantation Programme, Government of Kerala. This Court also had interaction with the State Nodal Officer of the KNOS and Deputy District Medical Officer, Ernakulam; the District Nodal Officer. A statement has also been placed on record by the Nodal Officer KNOS.

4. While so in the last one week, there are 17 writ petitions filed, which were posted together and heard on 15.11.2017. Quite tragically, one of the petitioners died in the meanwhile and that writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Expediency, either way, is the need of the hour and hence the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader were heard.

5. The learned Counsel were unanimous in their submission that there is no prohibition in the Act from making publication. Section 19 was specifically referred to and it was pointed out that only publications inviting donors for consideration is prohibited by legislation. Even the Legislature recognized the fact that there will be willing donors in the society who would sacrifice their organ; willingly to sustain another person's life. The petitioners herein beseech such donation on altruistic motives alone; which is a special reason as spoken of in the Act. They do not propose any consideration to be paid or any arrangement to be made, for such transplant. They pin their last hopes on altruistic persons who would willingly so sacrifice their organs to sustain the life of another. The publications only seek a response from the innate goodness of human beings; which this Court cannot ignore nor can the law makers.

6. It is submitted that there is a prevalence of renal complaints; especially with the changing life style. The deceased donor transplant scheme formulated by the State is unable to meet the demands of the rising number of patients; who are the expectant recipients. It is also submitted that a transplantation from a living donor is more advisable than one from a cadaver. The donors also have a support system in the form of societies and associations formed to help and assist them and it is a proved fact that a live donor still has a life expectancy of 15-20 years. A centralized system of