The court emphasized that a Certificate of Altruism is not mandatory for application processing unless the Authorization Committee finds it necessary, thus expediting the transplantation approval process.

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

------------------------------

W.P(C).No. 43065 OF 2025 G ------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2025 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is a patient undergoing treatment for kidney related issues at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. The second petitioner is the proposed donor. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

“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.P10 and P11 applications within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;”

2. Since the kidneys of the close relatives of the first petitioner are not suitable to transplant, the second petitioner has informed her willingness to donate her kidney to the first petitioner. It is submitted that since the donor and the recipient are not close relatives, the transplantation needs prior approval of the first respondent in view of Section 9 (3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act ,1994. Therefore, the petitioners submitted application along with documents before the second respondent to refer the matter to the first respondent for getting necessary approval for unrelated renal transplantation, evidenced by Exts.P10 and P11 applications. But, the second respondent has not referred the matter to the first respondent for approval, since the third respondent has not issued a certificate of altruism, to refer the matter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this court with the above writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. The question whether a Certificate of Altruism is mandatory to accept the applications along with its supporting documents to be considered by the concerned authorization 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.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that Ext.P10 and P11 were returned to the petitioner, since certificate of altruism was not received. The petitioner undertakes to produce all documents along with Ext.P10 and P11 before the second respondent, for forwarding the same to the first respondent.

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 directed to hand over all relevant documents along with Ext.P10 and P11, to the 2^nd respondent – Chairman of Local Approval Committee of Organ Transplantation, without a 'Certificate of Altruism' and this shall be done within a period of two weeks from today.

(b) The 2^nd respondent – Chairman of Local Approval 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 thereafter.

(c) On the afore application reaching the 1^st 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, o