Altruistic organ donations should not be rigidly restricted by familial definitions; the intent behind donation is critical for approval under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act.

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J.

1. The petitioners seeks to quash the rejection of their application seeking transplantation and to direct the respondent to grant approval for human transplantation of an organ from the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner by considering their application in Form 11 dated 22.11.2025.

2. The short facts which have culminated in the filing of the above Writ Petition are as follows:-

3. The 1st petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney decease stage V. The 2nd petitioner who is the brother of the petitioner’s maternal Aunt’s husband had come forward to offer his organ and the petitioners have together submitted an application dated 22.11.2025 under Form-11 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) enclosing all the attendant documents.

4. The petitioners would submit that after receipt of the their application the 2nd respondent had called them for an interview on 09.01.2026 and after receiving the documents and their statements has proceeded to reject the application with a one line non-speaking order stating that “Relationship not established”. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

6. The non-speaking impugned order would simply indicate that the joint application submitted by the petitioners had been rejected for the following reasons “Relationship not established”. A perusal of the contents of the affidavit and the documents submitted would indicate that the 1st petitioner, a 20 year old undergoing the III year Law Degree in VELS University was diagnosed with a chronic kidney failure and he has been advised by the doctors at the 3rd respondent hospital to undergo a renal transplant surgery. The near relatives of the petitioner have all been subjected to medical tests and none of them, after various medical tests were found to match the petitioner’s body. It appears that while the family was in the process of selecting a willing donor, the 2nd petitioner had come forward to donate his kidney. The 2nd petitioner is the brother of the petitioner’s maternal aunt Tmt.Bhavani’s husband, R.Sampath.

7. Thereafter, the records would show that the petitioner had submitted an application under Form-11 of the Rules enclosing all the requisite certificates. On receipt of the application, the 2nd respondent committee had called the petitioner for an interview on 09.01.2026. The petitioners have apart from submitting the relevant records submitted their oral statement setting forth the relationship of the petitioners. Despite production of the documents and making the oral statement, the impugned order has been passed. The 2nd respondent has overlooked the fact that the 2nd petitioner is the 3rd party and not a near relative.

8. Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (herein after referred to as the “Act”) deals with removal and transplantation of human organs not only between near relatives but also those not related to each other. In such cases the provisions of (3) of the Act would kick in. In such a situation, what is required to be established is that the organ was being authorised for transplantation because of affection or attachment or for any other special reasons. This is intended to curb commercial exploitation of organ transplant. These provisions were introduced post the amendment to in 2011. 9. (5) of the Act contemplates a joint appeal by the donor and recipient to be submitted in requisite form.

10. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues