IMPORTANT POINT
The authorities must provide clear reasoning for rejecting organ transplantation applications to ensure transparency and accountability, especially when health rights are at stake.

JUDGMENT :

(C.S. DIAS, J.)

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P21 order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the appeal the petitioners, declining permission to the petitioners for organ transplantation.

2. The 1st petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney disease. He has been advised to undergo kidney transplantation. The 2^nd petitioner has volunteered to donate her kidney. Consequently, the petitioners had submitted a joint application before the 3^rd respondent for permission as contemplated under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder (in short, 'Act and Rules'). However, by Ext.P12 order, the 3^rd respondent had rejected the joint application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. By Ext.P13 order, the 2^nd respondent had dismissed the appeal. The petitioners challenged the orders before this Court. By Ext.P20 judgment, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the appeal. Nonetheless, by Ext.P21 order, the 2^nd respondent has again dismissed the appeal re-confirming Ext.P13 and P12 orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 respectively. The action of the respondents 2 and 3 is illegal and unreasonable. There is absolutely no reason mentioned in the said orders, even though the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranni (Dy.S.P) has issued Ext.P3 certificate of altruism stating that there is no adverse remarks found against the petitioners. It is without adverting to Ext.P3 certificate and without assigning any valid reason that the respondents 2 and 3 have rejected the petitioners joint application for transplantation. Exts.P12, P13 and P21 orders are erroneous and are liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The materials on record substantiate that the 1^st petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney disease. The 2nd petitioner has volunteered to donate her kidney for the 1^st petitioner. Consequently, the petitioners had submitted a joint application before the 3^rd respondent seeking permission for transplantation as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. The 3^rd respondent has called for a report from the Dy.S.P, to ascertain genuineness of the transplantation. By Ext.P3 certificate, the Dy.S.P specifically found that there were no adverse remarks against the petitioners and there was no objection for granting permission for the transplantation. Notwithstanding the above certificate of altruism, the 3rd respondent by the cryptic Ext.P12 order found that there is no link to establish the relationship between the petitioners. The 3^rd respondent also found that the statements given by the donor and the witnesses were contradictory. Even though the petitioners carried up the matter in appeal, the 2^nd respondent reiterated the findings of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P13 order.

5. Aggrieved by Exts.P12 and P13, the petitioners had approached this Court. By Ext.P20 judgment, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the matter after going though all the materials produced by the petitioners.

6. Unfortunately, the 2^nd respondent had reiterated the very same findings in Exts.P12 and P13, without adverting to the findings of the Dy.S.P in Ext.P3 certificate of altruism. The finding of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P21 order is as follows:

“6. Based on thorough examination of the evidence presented and the findings outlined above, the Committee unanimously concluded that the appeal petition lacks merit and substance and recommended to reject the appeal petition. The appellants’ failure to establish a credible link between the donor and recipient, combined with the inconsistencies in statements, lack of supporting documentation and the inability of the donor and recipient to cite any incident or anecdote to prove the emotional attachment. Considering the depressive state of mind of the donor, her decision to donate a kidney