P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

This matter arises under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 ('the Act').

2. The first petitioner is suffering from chronic renal failure and is undergoing dialysis. It is stated by the petitioners that the Nephrologists who are treating the first petitioner have advised him that kidney transplantation is the only option to save his life. The case of the petitioners is that the second petitioner who is a friend of the first petitioner has though offered to donate one of his kidneys to the first petitioner, the Authorisation Committee under the Act declined approval for the removal of the organ of the second petitioner. Ext.P9 is the order passed by the Authorisation Committee in this connection. The first petitioner though took up the matter in appeal before the State Government, Ext.P9 order has been confirmed in the appeal. Ext.P12 is the order passed by the State Government in this connection. Exts.P9 and P12 orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

4. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act provides that if a person authorises removal of any of his organs before his death for transplantation into the body of another, who is not a near relative, such organ shall not be removed or transplanted without the prior approval of the Authorisation Committee. Section 2(i) of the Act defines 'near relative'. Only the spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson and granddaughter would come within the definition of 'near relative'. The second petitioner is admittedly not a near relative of the first petitioner going by the definition contained in the Act. It is in the said circumstances, the petitioners have sought the approval of the Authorisation Committee for the transplantation. Ext. P9 order indicates that the approval sought by the petitioners has been declined for two reasons. The first reason is that there is gross disparity in the financial status of the donor and the recipient and the second reason is that the donor and the recipient's brother could not explain satisfactorily the link between them which led to the offer being made. The second reason has been reinforced in Ext. P9 order stating that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to prove that the donor was working with the recipient. It is also observed in Ext. P9 order that the donor gave a false statement before the Committee that he is not married. In Ext. P12 order, the Government seems to have taken the view that there is enough grounds to suspect financial dealings in the transaction and therefore, Ext. P9 order is not liable to be interfered with.

5. The object of the Act is to regulate removal and transplantation of human organs with a view to prohibit commercial dealings in such transactions. A legislation of this nature was necessitated on account of the exploitation of humans for financial benefits in the dealings of organs. In order to achieve the object of the Act, sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 ('the Rules') makes it obligatory for the Authorisation Committee to ensure that no payment has been made or promised to be made to the donor or to any other person by the recipient. The sub-rule also makes it obligatory for the Authorisation Committee to satisfy the link between the parties and the circumstances which led to the offer being made. For the said purpose, the Authorisation Committee is empowered to take into account various aspects including the financial status of the parties. The said sub-rule provides that gross disparity in the financial status of the parties shall be evaluated in the backdrop of the objective of the statute. For a proper analysis of the scope of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules, the same needs to be quoted:

"(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relative