The rejection of an organ donation application must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing valid reasons and allowing the parties a chance to be heard.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the proposed donor of Sri.Rameshan P., who is a patient undergoing treatment for liver disease at Meitra Hospital, Kozhikode.

2. The husband of the petitioner and the son of the patient are close friends and were working together in a bakery. Since the liver of the close relatives of the patient is not suitable for transplantation, the petitioner came forward and informed her readiness to donate a part of her liver to him. Since they are not close relatives, they have submitted joint application as evidenced by Ext.P10 Form 3 application and Ext.P11 Form 11 application, along with Ext.P1 altruism certificate and necessary documents, to refer the matter to the first respondent for getting necessary approval for unrelated organ transplantation. However, the joint application submitted by the petitioners was rejected by Ext.P12. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P12 is a cryptic order, which does not contain any valid or cogent reason for the rejection of the application. It is also pointed out that the application was accompanied by Ext.P1 altruism certificate; however, without considering the same, the application was rejected by Ext.P12. The learned counsel, relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ismail Kunju M. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (1) KHC 547 ], further submits that at least basic norm should have been followed by the committee while orders are passed; and if orders are passed without any proper reasoning, there is breach of principles of natural justice for non-supply of the report on which the order was passed.

5. The relevant portion of Ext.P12 order reads as follows:

“In the following case, the donor, Smt.Nithyamol K.S., is only 23 years of age. As she has not yet completed her family and is currently undergoing infertility treatment, the Committee deems it inadvisable for her to volunteer for an unrelated liver transplantation program. Additionally, the bank account details of the donor’s husband were not submitted for review. Hence, the application for organ transplantation in this case is rejected.”

A perusal of Ext.P12 shows that it does not disclose the reasons or considerations, on the basis of which the order has been passed. For the purpose of filing an appeal, the petitioner must be provided with proper and valid reasons of rejection enabling her to approach the statutory authority. Since the impugned order is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, it is only appropriate to set aside Ext.P12 insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to direct the third respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

a) Ext.P12 order dated 23.01.2026 insofar as the petitioner is concerned is set aside.

b) The third respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after issuing notice to the parties and affording them an opportunity of being heard, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

c) While passing such orders, the third respondent shall also take into consideration Ext.P1 altruism certificate.

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE