The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a legitimate link between donor and recipient while confirming the absence of commercial transactions in organ donation cases.

JUDGMENT

The first petitioner is the proposed donor of the second petitioner, who is facing the end stage of kidney disease. They have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to passing of Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4 orders and to quash Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4 orders rejecting permission for renal transplantation.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to re-consider Exhibit-P1 joint application at the earliest possible time and accord sanction to the petitioners for renal transplantation considering the ill health of the 2nd petitioner.

c) Issue such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may consider appropriate in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

2. The husband of the first petitioner/donor and the son of the second petitioner/recipient have good relations and thus, the first petitioner decided to donate her one kidney to the second petitioner due to the affinity and attachment with her family. However, the joint applications filed by the petitioners for granting permission for organ transplantation were rejected by the second respondent vide Ext.P3 order. Though an appeal was filed before the first respondent against Ext.P3 order, the same was also rejected as per Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent as well as the second respondent has not properly considered their applications and miserably failed to conduct an enquiry by considering the documents submitted by the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is disparity between the statements recorded by respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in Ext.P3 order, it is stated that the donor submitted before the committee that her husband worked with the son of the recipient before their marriage in 2013; and it is further stated that the husband of the donor submitted that he had worked with the son of the recipient prior to his own marriage. However, the first respondent, in Ext.P4 order, stated that the donor’s husband worked at the Surya Wedding Centre with the recipient’s son from 2013 until the COVID outbreak. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, there is disparity in the statements recorded by respondents 1 and 2. The period during which the donor’s husband worked with the recipient’s son is not properly considered by the first respondent in arriving at the conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the police verification report also states that the donor has voluntarily decided to donate her kidney and she was made aware of the penal provisions. The learned counsel also argued that it was clear from the report of the police that there is no commercial transaction involved between the donor and the recipient; and the donor agreed to donate her kidney out of altruism. Hence, the learned counsel sought for a reconsideration of the issue by the second respondent.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners miserably failed to prove the link between them, who are the donor and the recipient. There was no document at all to prove their relationship. The period during which the husband of the donor and the son of the recipient had worked toge