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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. Arun, J.
Jillet. K.T. and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 33655 of 2024
Decided On : 14-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.A. Chacko, C.M. Charisma, Babu V.P.
For the Respondent: Smt. Deepa Narayanan, Sr. GP., Sri. Thomas. J. Anakkallunkal

IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof for altruistic organ donation lies with the applicants, and the Authorisation Committee must consider all relevant factors without presuming commercial intent.

Headnote:

(A) Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - Section 9(5) - Writ petition against rejection of application for organ donation by non-relatives - The Authorisation Committee's rejection based on suspicion of commercial dealing was quashed, mandating reconsideration of the application with all relevant factors. (Paras 1, 9, 12)

(B) Altruistic Donation - The court emphasized that the burden of proving the altruistic nature of the donation lies with the applicants, who must provide evidence of their relationship and intent without commercial elements. (Paras 5, 10)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, a kidney patient and his non-relative donor, faced rejection of their organ donation application due to suspected commercial elements, prompting the writ petition.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the Authorisation Committee failed to adequately consider the petitioners' claims and the nature of their relationship, leading to an unjust rejection.

Issues: The main issues included whether the rejection was justified based on the suspicion of commercial dealings and the proof required for altruistic donations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Authorisation Committee must assess the genuineness of the donation without undue reliance on the absence of tangible proof of affection, and should consider all relevant factors.

Result: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed.

JUDGMENT :

V.G.ARUN, J.

The first petitioner is a chronic kidney patient, advised to undergo renal transplantation surgery to save his life. The second petitioner has volunteered to donate his organ for conducting the transplantation surgery. As the petitioners are not near relatives, they submitted a joint application, as provided under 9(5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (the Act for short). The District Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee under the Act rejected the application, suspecting commercial dealing behind the human organ donation and the Appellate Authority upheld the rejection. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard Adv.C.A.Chacko for the petitioners, Government Pleader Adv.Deepa Narayanan for respondents 1 to 4 and Adv.Thomas J.Anakkallunkal for the 5th respondent.

3. The writ petition calls for a decision on the correctness of the decision taken by the authorities under the Act, as to the genuineness or otherwise of the altruistic organ donation. The issue has to be decided bearing in mind the fact that the Act is intended to strike a balance between two conflicting needs, viz; the need to prohibit commercial dealings in human organs and the need to bring in a legislation, providing for removal of organs from persons suffering from brain stem death and for altruistic donation by living persons. Section 3 of the Act deals with the authority for removal of human organs or tissues or both. By virtue of Sub section (1) of Section 3, any donor may, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, before his death, authorise the removal of any organ or tissue or both of his body for therapeutic purposes. The restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs is contained in Section 9, the relevant portion of which reads as under;

    “Section 9(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), no human organ or tissue or both removed from the body of a donor before his death shall be transplanted into a recipient unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient.

    xxx xxxx xxx

    (3) If any donor authorises the removal of any of his human organs or tissues or both before his death under sub-section (1) of Section 3 for transplantation into the body of such recipient not being a near relative as is specified by the donor by reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reasons, such human organ or tissue or both shall not be removed and transplanted without the prior approval of the Authorisation Committee.

    (4)(a) The composition of the Authorisation Committees shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.

    (b) The State Government and the Union territories shall constitute, by notification, one or more Authorisation Committees consisting of such members as may be nominated by the State Governments and the Union territories on such terms and conditions as may be specified in the notification for the purposes of this section.

    (5) On an application jointly made in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, by the donor and the recipient, the Authorisation Committee shall, after holding an inquiry and after satisfying itself that the applicants have complied with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder, grant to the applicants approval for the removal and transplantation of the human organ.

    (6) If, after the inquiry and after giving an opportunity to the applicants of being heard, the Authorisation Committee is satisfied that the applicants have not complied with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject the application for approval.”

4. A conjoint reading of Sections 3(1) and 9 shows that, while any donor can authorise the removal of a human organ from his body for therapeutic purposes, if the donor is not a near relative of the recipient, reasons, such as affection or attachment towards the recip

          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