Authorities must provide clear reasons for rejecting organ donation applications to ensure transparency and protect rights to life and health.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P2 and P11 orders passed by the respondents 2 and 1 and grant permission to the 1^st petitioner to undergo kidney transplantation.

2. The 1^st petitioner is suffering from chronic kidney disease and has been advised transplantation. The 2^nd petitioner has volunteered to donate her kidney. The petitioners had filed a joint application for permission before the 2^nd respondent. By Ext.P2 order, the 2^nd respondent rejected the joint application. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioners had filed Ext.P10 appeal before the 1^st respondent. Unfortunately, the 1^st respondent has also rejected Ext.P10 appeal by Ext.P11 order. Both the respondents 1 and 2 have not assigned any reasons to reject the petitioners' joint application. In fact, the 2^nd respondent had sought a certificate of altruism from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mattanchery, who submitted Ext.P1 certificate stating that the donation is purely altruistic. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not adverted to Ext.P1 certificate in the impugned orders. There are no reasons stated in the said orders, to reject the petitioners' joint application. Hence, Exts.P2 and P11 may be quashed.

3. The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. The 2^nd respondent has stated that there was no material to prove the long relationship between the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner's husband. There was several discrepancies and contradictions in the statements given by the 2^nd petitioner and the witnesses. Moreover, since the 2^nd petitioner is a woman, all the more precaution has been taken in the matter, in view of Rule 22 of the THOT Rules, 2014. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The petitioners submitted a joint application before the 2^nd respondent seeking permission for the 2^nd petitioner to donate her kidney to the 1^st petitioner, who is suffering from chronic kidney disease.

6. On submission of the joint application, the 2nd respondent had called for a certificate of altruism from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who issued Ext.P1 certificate dated 03.05.2024, explicitly stating that there is nothing found adverse in the donation by the 2^nd petitioner to the 1^st petitioner. However, while the 2^nd respondent considered the joint application, the 2^nd respondent has not adverted to Ext.P1 certificate. Instead, the 2^nd respondent has gone on to hold that there are no material to prove the long standing relationship between the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner's husband. Therefore, the commercial angle involved in the donation cannot be excluded.

7. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioners preferred Ext.P10 appeal before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent reconsidered the matter and has arrived at the same conclusion as that of the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P11 order.

8. A reading of Exts.P2 and P11 orders would show that both the authorities have given the very same reason. However, there is nothing mentioned about Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Commissioner of Police. Furthermore, I find that, other than for stating that there is no sufficient material to prove the relationship between the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner's husband, no other specific reasons have been mentioned in the said two orders.

9. Recently a Bench of this Court in Ismail Kunju vs. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KHC Online 547] has emphatically held that the authorities are obliged to give reasons in the orders passed under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and Rules (in short, 'Act and Rules') framed thereunder. It is apposite to refer to the legal principles in the said decision, which reads as follows:

“11. Thus, the scheme of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 2014 obligates the Authorisation Committee to provide the applicants an op