Back
Donor's Criminal Past Cannot Hinder Organ Transplant: in Muhammed Jishar Case
Friend's Criminal Record Almost Derails Kidney Transplant
The has ruled that a proposed organ donor's cannot be used to stall a . Justice Harisankar V. Menon, hearing a writ petition by a chronic kidney disease patient, directed to forward the donor's papers to the for consideration, disregarding a police report detailing five criminal cases against the donor.
The Case: A Patient's Plea for a Friend's Kidney
Muhammed Jishar A., a 35-year-old suffering from end-stage renal disease, had been undergoing treatment at in Ernakulam. His close friend, Frijo C.F., aged 34, volunteered to donate one of his kidneys. In , the hospital sought a from the police, as required under the . However, the , issued a report (Exhibit P3) revealing that Frijo was involved in five criminal cases registered in Thrissur district.
Based on this report, refused to forward the transplantation application to the . The hospital effectively halted the process, citing the donor's criminal background. Aggrieved, Muhammed Jishar approached the High Court, arguing that the police report was irrelevant to .
Court Steps In: No Legal Bar Against Donor with Past Cases
Justice Menon squarely rejected the hospital's stance.
"Merely because a person has been involved in certain criminal cases, it cannot be said that the statute interdicts such person from coming forward as a donor in terms of the provisions of the Act,"
the court observed. The judge emphasized that the Transplantation Act does not list
as a disqualifying factor for
.
The court relied on a previous decision by a learned single judge in
Radhakrishna Pillai v. , Ernakulam
[2021 (6) KLT 408], which held that
"the
of the donor cannot be a ground of consideration in the matter of
."
Additional support was drawn from the judgments in
Uvais Muhammad K.C. v. State of Kerala
[2025 (1) KHC 253] and
Shareef M. v. State of Kerala
[2025 KHC OnLine 11974], which reinforce the same principle.
Key Observations from the Bench
In his order, Justice Menon made it clear that the police report (Ext.P3) should not be used as a basis to withhold the papers. The court noted that the hospital's refusal to forward the application was based solely on the donor's criminal cases, which is impermissible under the law.
The judge observed:
"This Court is of the opinion that merely because a person has been involved in certain criminal cases, it cannot be said that the statute interdicts such person from coming forward as a donor in terms of the provisions of the Act."
Final Order: Hospital Must Act
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direct order:
"the 1st respondent to place the papers before the 4th respondent-Committee for consideration in accordance with law, taking into account the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment."
This ruling ensures that the donor's criminal record will not be a barrier to the transplant. The must now evaluate the application on its merits, focusing on medical fitness and the genuineness of , rather than extraneous factors like past criminal cases. The decision reaffirms that the right to donate an organ cannot be curtailed by a donor's legal history, provided the statutory requirements under the Transplantation Act are met.
