Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RIJO VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.45259/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not specified
For the Respondents: Not specified
The court emphasized that emotional attachment in organ donation cases may not always necessitate extensive documentary evidence to be recognized legally.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge the orders of the District Level Authorisation Committee rejecting their application for kidney transplantation under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. The petitioners allege arbitrary rejection due to unfounded claims regarding emotional attachment and consent. The Court finds merit in the appeal, stating that the rejection lacks legal foundation and must be reconsidered. The main issues raised include the legality of the rejection by the Technical Committee and the petitioners' ability to prove emotional connection. The Court’s reasoning emphasizes that emotional attachment might not always require extensive documentation to be credible. The Court ultimately sets aside the orders by the authorisation committees and remits the case back for fresh consideration within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to authorisation committee's orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding legality and authority. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. details of the emotional connection and its significance. (Para 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 5. procedural inadequacies noted by the court. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. outcome of the petition. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The 1st petitioner, who is a chronic kidney patient and the 2nd petitioner-Donor, challenge Exts.P12, P18 and P19 orders of respondents 1 and 3 and seek to issue a direction to the District Level Authorisation Committee for renal transplantation to grant approval to the case of the petitioners for donation of one kidney by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner in terms of their application.
2. The petitioners jointly filed Form-11 application for approval of transplantation of kidney in accordance with Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules , 2014. The Local Committee for Transplantation found the case as genuine and referred the case for approval of State Level Authorisation Committee as per Ext.P2. The police gave Ext.P3 Certificate of Altruism stating that the 2nd petitioner has voluntarily consented to donate.
3. Physical and mental fitness of the 2nd petitioner to donate organ has been certified by a team of Doctors as per Ext.P10. However, the 2nd respondent-District Level Authorisation Committee rejected the application. The petitioners would submit that Ext.P12 is not a collective decision and the reasons are given only by the Chairman. Ext.P12 therefore is a nullity.
4. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.45259/2024 challenging Ext.P12 order. This Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the appeal. The 1st respondent illegally constituted a State Level Technical Committee and placed the issue before the Committee. On the basis of the report of the Technical Committee, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P18. There is no independent consideration of appeal by the Government, contend the petitioners.
5. The counsel for the petitioners argued that Ext.P18 order of the 1st respondent is without any power or authority in law since it is based on a report of Technical Committee illegally constituted. There is no independent application of mind by the Government. The finding in Ext.P18 that the petitioners failed to establish a credible link between donor and recipient and has not proved emotional attachment are without considering the facts and documents. Ext.P12 order has been signed by the Chairman of the District Level Authorisation Committee only. The members have not concurred with the decision. The link between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner has been clearly established by documents on record. The rejection of application is therefore highly arbitrary and illegal.
6. The Government Pleader resisted the writ petition on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent has reportedly worked in the house of the 1st petitioner to look after the father of the 1st petitioner. The father passed away in November, 2024. The 2nd petitioner was not aware of the surgical procedure or consequences of the surgery. The donor family is from a low socio-economic background. Based on examination of evidence, the District Level Authorisation Committee concluded that the application of the petitioners lacks merit and substance. The petitioners failed to establish a credible link between the Donor and the Recipient. They failed to cite any incident or anecdote to prove emotional attachment.
7. In the circumstances, the State Level Technical Committee unanimously concluded that the appeal filed by the petitioners lacks merit and substance on the basis of evidence presented. Hence, the Government rejected the appeal. There is no illegality whatsoever in the decision. The Government can very well constitute a Technical Committee of experts to look into the intricacies of the case in order to arrive at a conclusion. The
