The court ruled that strict adherence to regulations is essential in kidney transplantation cases, particularly for non-related donors, to ensure genuine altruism and safety.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

The first petitioner is a renal patient undergoing dialysis since April,2023 in Oman. He was advised to undergo kidney transplantation. Since the wife and brother of the first petitioner are both working in Army, they cannot donate their kidney to the first petitioner. The second petitioner has volunteered to donate his kidney to the first petitioner for transplantation. They approached the Deputy Superintendent, Ambalappuzha for police clearance, but the request for the petitioners was rejected as per Ext.P5 and No Objection Certificate was not granted. Thereafter, they approached this Court and as per Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.37861 of 2024, the petitioners were directed to approach the District Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee (for short 'DLAC') without considering the report of the Deputy Superintendent, Ambalappuzha. The petitioners approached the DLAC, but their request was rejected on the basis of the second report of the Deputy Superintendent, Ambalappuzha, as per Ext.P7 dated 13.12.2024. Again, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1757/2025 in which this Court dismissed the writ petition reserving the right of the petitioners to invoke the statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the State Government under Section 17 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for short 'the THOT Act'). As per Ext.P9, the State Level Technical Committee was constituted for consideration of the appeal and the appeal was rejected on the ground that the first petitioner failed to establish a credible link between the donor and the recipient. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this court with the above writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 13.12.2024 of the DLAC and the order dated 18.03.2025 of the State Level Technical Committee are bereft of any reason. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that after rejection by the DLAC, though the appeal was filed before the State Government, they have not considered the altruism of the second petitioner for donating the kidney. It is further submitted that both authorities have found no evidence of monetary transactions between the petitioners regarding the transplantation. Learned counsel further submitted that since the first petitioner has no close relatives to donate kidney, the second petitioner, who has come forward towards altruism, seeks order for kidney transplantation.

4. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, however, submits that the donor, a 36-year- old mother, has three children aged 16, 13, and 12 and while considering the application, specific attention should have been given to the provisions under Rule 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 ('the THOT Rules,2014'), specifically the precautions applicable to female donors. It is also submitted that both the authorities have found that there is no altruism and there is lack of supporting documents and there is inability of the donor and recipient to cite any incident to prove the emotional attachment and hence, the authorities have rejected the prayer for transplantation of kidney.

5. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.

6. Section 9 of the THOT Act prescribes the restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs o