The Kerala High Court has held that it is the duty of the State to accept and implement the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on organ transplantation, which include setting up a digital platform for non-directed altruistic donation of live organs and a swap kidney donation programme.

The Court arrived at this conclusion in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India on a uniform national transplantation policy, swap transplantation, welfare of live donors and prevention of their commercialisation and exploitation.

The Committee’s recommendations also include revisiting the police enquiry into reports of illegal organ transplantation in Thrissur district, disclosure of transplant charges by hospitals, and a single-window, time-bound clearance system for transplant approvals.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed, “In view of the directions in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation (supra) and also the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, it is now the duty of the State to accept and implement the said recommendations.”

Advocate Thomas Varghese appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Government Pleader Biju Meenattoor appeared for the State.

The writ petition was filed by a 19-year-old resident of Thrissur, relying on news reports, RTI replies from the Kerala State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (KSOTTO) and a police enquiry into reports of illegal organ transplantation in Thrissur district.

During the hearing, the Senior Government Pleader placed before the Court the report of the Advisory Committee meeting.

The Committee recommended that KSOTTO, in close consultation with the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO), establish a digital platform for offering live organs such as a kidney or a portion of the liver, and skin, to needy patients on a non-directed altruistic basis.

As a condition, the Committee recommended that “Only KSOTTO shall invite applications for live unrelated altruistic organ donation from the general public and process it with utmost confidentiality and maintaining anonymity.” The cost of the donor’s medical, psychological and socio-economic evaluation would be borne by KSOTTO, to be reimbursed by the recipient after a successful transplant.

For kidney and liver, the Committee laid down an allocation policy beginning with the transplantation centre of the donor’s choice, followed by domino donation chains, swap pairs, the most suitable patient listed at the centre, and then the regional and State lists. Among equally suitable patients, priority would go first to those with no suitable living donor among near relatives.

The Committee further recommended that the Government introduce a swap kidney donation programme strictly adhering to Section 9(3A) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, and that KSOTTO introduce a digital platform to assess the patient load in end-stage renal, liver and heart disease to frame long-term policies.

It also recommended that the Appropriate Authority consider the possibility of revamping the police enquiry on illegal organ transplantation reports in Thrissur district through proper legal manoeuvres. Transplant centres were to be encouraged to disclose their charges suo motu, with KSOTTO publishing an upper ceiling on charges. The Committee also called for simplified application procedures and “the establishment of a single-window, time-bound clearance system for organ transplantation approvals.”

The counsel for KSOTTO drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 19 of the Supreme Court’s order in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation. There, the Supreme Court requested the Union, through NOTTO, to evolve model allocation criteria for a uniform national transplantation policy that addresses gender, class and regional discrimination, and to frame national swap transplantation guidelines implemented digitally through an accessible web portal.

The Supreme Court had also requested that guidelines be evolved for the welfare of live donors, including informed and voluntary consent, a portal and mandatory follow-up with doctors, “to ensure that commercialization and exploitation of donors is prevented.”

It further directed States to ensure that hospitals report organ donation and transplantation data to the national registry under Section 13D of the 1994 Act, and that strict action be taken against defaulting hospitals.

In view of these directions and the Advisory Committee’s recommendations, the Court held that the State is duty-bound to accept and implement the recommendations, and disposed of the writ petition with that direction.

Cause Title: Advaidh M v. State of Kerala & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:86455]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Thomas Varghese.

Respondents: Senior Government Pleader Biju Meenattoor, Advocates Ajit Joy and Asha Treesa Jose.

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: