The court emphasized the necessity of altruism in organ donation and mandated that the Authorisation Committee provide clear and cogent reasons for any application rejection under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 06^th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P21 order passed by the 4^th respondent, rejecting the petitioners’

joint application for permission for organ transplantation.

2. The 1^st petitioner is suffering from liver cirrhosis. He has been advised to undergo liver transplantation to save his life. Since there is no suitable family member in the 1^st petitioner’s family to donate the liver, the 2^nd petitioner has volunteered to donate a part of her liver for the transplantation. Consequently, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P10 joint application before the 4^th respondent with all the supporting documents. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P1 Certificate of Altruism issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guruvayur (‘ACP’ in short). However, the 4^th respondent rejected the joint application by Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P12, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P13 appeal before the 2^nd respondent. But, the 2^nd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P15 order. The petitioners challenged Exts.P12 and P15 orders before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 439/2025. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 07.01.2025, this Court directed the ACP to file a statement regarding the enquiry he had conducted. Accordingly, the ACP filed Ext.P17 affidavit, inter alia, stating that the Station House Officer, Pavaratty Police Station had conducted an enquiry and found out the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner's husband are close friends. It was in the said background that the 2^nd petitioner volunteered to altruistically donate a part of her liver. She had also filed an affidavit to the said effect. By Ext.P20 judgment, this Court set aside Exts.P12 and P15 orders and directed the 4^th respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after adverting to Ext.P1 Certificate of Altruism. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P20 judgment, by Ext.P21 order, the 4^th respondent has rejected the joint application. Ext.P21 is ex facie illegal and wrong. Hence, the writ petition.

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

4. The petitioners had submitted Ext.P10 joint application seeking permission for the 2^nd petitioner to donate a part of her liver for the 1^st petitioner. By Ext.P12 order, the 4^th respondent had rejected the joint application, which order was confirmed by the 2^nd respondent by Ext.P15 order.

5. The petitioners had challenged the said order before this Court in W.P(C).No.439/2025. By Ext.P20 judgment, this Court, after perusing Ext.P1 certificate and the affidavit of the ACP allowed the writ petition by making the following observations.

“9. In compliance with the above order, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has filed an affidavit stating that he had directed the Station House Officer of Pavaratty Police Station, to conduct an enquiry and also the 2nd petitioner to file an affidavit before him stating that there was no commercial dealings with the 1st petitioner. It is on the basis of the said material that he has issued Ext.P1 certificate.

10. Recently, in Ismail Kunju (supra) case, this Court had categorically held that, going by the scheme of the Act, the authorization committee is to pragmatically interview that parties and video-graph the interview and also give reasons for allowing or declining an application for approval under Rule 7(3) of the Rules, 2014.

11. In the case on hand, after going through the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ext.P1 certificate of altruism, I am of the view that both the respondents 2 and 4 have failed to consider the impact of the said certificates in Exts.P12 and P15 orders. Hence, I am satisfied that the writ petition is to be al