SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Soubiya, W/o. Safeer – appellant
Versus
The District Level Authorization Committee For Transplantation Of Human Organs – Respondent
WP(C) Nos.30365 of 2023, 30984 of 2023
Decided on : 26-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For the Respondent: SRI. R.S.KALKURA, SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE - GP

Point of Law: It is indubitable that there are certain specified prescriptions stipulated in ‘Rules’, to apply in the process of organ donation.

Headnote:

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 - Kidney transplantation - Police Clearance Certificate - District Level Authorisation Committee - Petitioners will have to follow mandate of law strictly and scrupulously, because it is only if systems are robust, can the laudable intent behind organ donation be preserved. (Para 6).

Finding of the Court:

Petitioners require is to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the Superintendent, or Deputy Superintendent of Police, of the area where both the recipient and donor are residing and not a 'PCC'; and that too, subject to it being insisted by 1st respondent – DLAC, Court certain that this is a matter that should be left to such Authority to decide.

Result: Ordered accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

The first petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are patients waiting for kidney transplantation – who are now stated to be surviving on dialysis and other life support mechanisms. They say that, even though they have placed their request for the afore – identifying the 2nd petitioners to be their respective donors, the 2nd respondent – Hospital is refusing to forward the same to the 1st respondent – District Level Authorisation Committee (DLAC), solely for the reason that a Police Clearance Certificate (‘PCC’) has not been obtained by them.

2. The petitioners assert that, consequent to the coming into force of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (herein after referred to as ‘Rules 2014’), 'PCC' is unnecessary to be obtained; and therefore, that the 2nd respondent must be directed to forward their applications, along with other relevant documents, to the 1st respondent, so that the said Authority can take a final decision urgently. They plead that this be done quickly, because they are awaiting organ transplantation for the last several months and are in great distress now.

3. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, pertinently, also affirmed that a 'PCC' is not necessary and that what is now required by the petitioners to obtain is a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the District Superintendent of Police, or Deputy Superintendent of Police, of the District having jurisdiction over the donor and the recipient. He, however, added that the DLAC has been statutorily entrusted with the competence to decide all modalities; and hence, that if the petitioners are to present themselves before the said Authority, as and when they are called, a final decision on such a certificate being obtained by them will also be taken by them. He submitted that he is making this submission, so that the processes in favour of the petitioners can be expedited; but added that the DLAC can issue final authorisations only if all relevant and germane requirements are satisfied.

4. Sri.R.S.Kalkura – learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent -Hospital, submitted that his client is only acting per the directives given to them by the 1st respondent – DLAC; and that, if this Court so directs, they are willing to forward the documents obtained from the petitioners to the said Authority. He submitted that, however, his client will have to abide by the final decision to be taken by the DLAC.

5. When I consider the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that there are certain specified prescriptions stipulated in the ‘Rules’, to apply in the process of organ donation. This Court cannot, certainly, dilute the same or relax it in individual cases.

6. To paraphrase, the petitioners will have to follow the mandate of law strictly and scrupulously, because it is only if the systems are robust, can the laudable intent behind organ donation be preserved.

7. That said, since the learned Government Pleader says that all which the petitioners require is to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the Superintendent, or Deputy Superintendent of Police, of the area where both the recipient and donor are residing and not a 'PCC'; and that too, subject to it being insisted by the 1st respondent – DLAC, I am certain that this is a matter that should be left to such Authority to decide.

In the afore circumstances, these Writ Petitions are ordered in the following manner:

a) The 2nd respondent – Convener of the Local Committee of Organ Transplantation of the Hospital concerned, will forward the applications of the petitioners, along with all necessary documents, except ‘Certificate of Altruism’, to the 1st respondent – DLAC; and this shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

b) On the afore applications reaching the 1st respondent DLAC, its competent Authority will notify the petitioners and inform them whether they have to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the concerned Police A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top