The necessity of a Certificate of Altruism in organ transplantation applications is not absolute, contingent on specific case evaluations.

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proposed donor of a liver patient Mr.Ramakrishnan Nair.T., undergoing treatment for liver related problems at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sicences, Ponekkara, Kochi. The petitioner has 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 liver transplantation in respect of Ext.P9 application 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 2^nd respondent to accept and forward Exts.P9 application with documents to the 1^st respondent for consideration, without insisting on the certificate from the 3^rd respondent.

c.Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to forward the report regarding altruism of the petitioner, in the event of request from 1^st respondent;”

2. When the petitioner came to know about the disease of Mr.Ramakrishnan Nair.T., she expressed her readiness to donate her liver. Thereafter Ext.P9 Form 3 application of the petitioner and the patient was executed. Since the petitioner and the patient 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner is hereby granted liberty to hand over all relevant documents to the 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent – Convener of Local Committee of Organ Transplantation of the Hospital concerned, will forward the application of the petitioner and the patient, along with all necessary documents, except ‘Certificate of Altruism’, to the 1^st 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 1^st respondent -

DLAC, its competent Authority will notify the petitioner and inform whether she has 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, they will intimate them of such within a period of two weeks from the date on which they receive application from the 2^nd respondent; upon which, the petitioner will be required to obtain the same and produce it before the said Authori