Back
Wife's Past Kidney Donation No Bar For Husband's Donation:
Single-judge Justice Harisankar V. Menon quashes rejection orders and directs the District Level Authorisation Committee to reconsider the application within ten days, holding that a wife's prior organ donation cannot be used to deny her husband's .
The Case: A Donor's Past Family Donation Used Against Him
The legal battle began when Fousiya, a 38-year-old kidney patient undergoing treatment at Medical Trust Hospital in Ernakulam, found a willing donor in Manoj C. S., a 48-year-old resident of Thrissur district. The duo filed a joint application under the (THOTA) seeking permission for the transplant.
However, the (the 4th respondent) rejected the application through an order dated (Exhibit P12). The primary reason cited was that Manoj's wife had donated one of her kidneys to a woman named Sulaikha a few years earlier. Additionally, the committee pointed to information from the , indicating that Manoj was an accused in a criminal case and had a habit of consuming alcohol.
When Manoj and Fousiya appealed to the (the 2nd respondent), the appellate authority upheld the rejection on (Exhibit P13). Left with no other remedy, the petitioners approached the .
Legal Framework and Flawed Reasoning
Under read with , an Authorisation Committee must scrutinise applications to ensure there is no , involvement of a , or . The Rule also mandates that the donor must not be addicted to any drug.
In the impugned orders, neither the committee nor the appellate authority pointed to any commercial element or . Instead, the rejection hinged entirely on two grounds: the wife's past donation and the donor's alleged criminal record and alcohol consumption.
The High Court found this approach legally untenable. Justice Menon observed that the wife's prior act of donating a kidney had no statutory bearing on her husband's application.
"Merely for the reason that the wife of the 2nd petitioner had donated a kidney a few years back, that cannot be a reason for rejection of an application filed under the Act by the 2nd petitioner,"
the Court stated.
As for Manoj's criminal antecedents and alcohol use, the Court noted that Rule 7(3) only permits rejection if the donor is — not alcohol or mere criminal charges. The Court held that the authorities had failed to apply the correct legal standard.
Court's Key Observations
Justice Menon emphasised that the Authorisation Committee must align its decisions with the principles laid down in two recent precedents: and . These judgments clarify that rejection must be based on and not on .
The Court also underscored an important gap in the impugned order:
"A reading of Ext.P12 shows that involvement of a
or any
has not been pointed out as a reason for rejecting the application."
The Verdict and Directions
Setting aside both Ext.P12 and Ext.P13, the High Court directed the District Level Authorisation Committee to reconsider the matter afresh. The fresh consideration must be completed within ten days from the date of the judgment () and must be preceded by a hearing for the petitioners.
The decision reinforces the principle that the THOTA regime is designed to facilitate , not to create unnecessary hurdles for donors and recipients. By rejecting the notion that a spouse's past donation can taint a donor's present application, the Court has sent a clear message to Authorisation Committees across the state: stick to the statutory framework and avoid inventing new grounds for rejection.
The ruling is expected to provide relief to many prospective organ donors who have faced similar rejections based on family history rather than a genuine risk of commodification or .
