Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
SHEREEF A. – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS, ERNAKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30251 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For the Respondents: SRI. R S KALKURA
The necessity for a Certificate of Altruism in unrelated organ transplants was deemed non-mandatory, streamlining approval processes for applicants.
Headnote:(A) The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 - The necessity of a Certificate of Altruism was challenged in context to unrelated kidney transplantation. The court referenced past judgments to clarify the procedure for approval and emphasized avoiding routine verification through police. (Paras 3-4)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court reinforced that the Authorization Committee must decide on applications rather than relying on mandatory certificates when other options are viable. (Paras 4a-4g)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought approval for kidney transplantation without a Certificate of Altruism, which had been previously deemed unnecessary in similar cases.
Findings of Court:
The court permitted the petitioners to submit all necessary documents excluding the Certificate of Altruism, establishing a streamlined process for future approvals.
Issues: The necessity of a Certificate of Altruism in application processes for unrelated organ donation was central to the court's determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a comprehensive assessment should be made by the Authorization Committee without defaulting to police verification, upholding procedural efficiency and individual rights.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with specific directive timelines for the involved respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek approval for kidney transplantation. (Para 2) |
| 2. court reviews previous decision on certificate of altruism. (Para 3) |
| 3. court establishes necessary processes for organ transplantation approvals. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The first petitioner is a patient undergoing treatment for kidney related problems at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. The second petitioner is the proposed donor. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate and effective steps to issue approval for unrelated kidney transplantation as per Exts.P6 and P7 applications within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to accept and forward Exts.P6 and P7 applications with documents to the 1st respondent for consideration, without the certificate of the 3rd respondent.
c.Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to forward the report regarding altruism of petitioners, in the event of request from
1st respondent;”
2. When the second petitioner came to know about the disease of the first petitioner, she expressed her readiness to donate her kidney. Thereafter Ext.P4 joint application and Ext.P5 consent letter was executed. Since the petitioners are not close relatives, they approached the second respondent with necessary application and documents except the altruism certificate, to refer the matter to the first respondent for getting approval. Since the third respondent has not issued the letter of altruism, the second respondent did not forward the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this court with the above writ petition.
3. The question whether a Certificate of Altruism is mandatory to accept the applications along with its supporting documents to be considered by the concerned authorisation committee was considered by this court in Shoukathali Pullikuzhiyil and another v. the District Legal Authorization Committee and others [ 2017 (3) KHC 259 ] and it was held that verification through Police as a routine manner in all cases should be avoided and it is the Authorization Committee to take the decision.
4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The petitioners are hereby granted liberty to hand over all relevant documents to the 2nd respondent – Convener of Local Committee of Organ Transplantation, without a 'Certificate of Altruism' and this shall be done within a period of two weeks from today.
(b) The 2nd respondent – Convener of Local Committee of Organ Transplantation of the Hospital concerned, will forward the applications of the petitioners, along with all necessary documents, except ‘Certificate of Altruism’, to the 1st respondent – District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs (DLAC); and this shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(c) On the afore application reaching the 1st respondent -
DLAC, its competent Authority will notify the petitioners and inform whether they have to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the concerned Police Authority.
(d)If the DLAC is to find that no such Certificate is required in this case, they will complete the processes, leading to necessary permissions to be granted to the petitioners, within a period of one month thereafter.
(e) However, if, on the contrary, the DLAC is to find that ‘Certificate of Altruism’ is required to be obtained by the petitioners, they will intimate them of such within a period of two weeks from the date on which they receive application from the 2nd respondent; upon which, the petitioners will be required to obtain the same and produce it before the said A
