Permission For Organ Donation Can't Be Rejected Unless There Is Cogent Material To Establish 'Commercial Element': Kerala HC

The Court ordered the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs (DLAC) to grant approval for a renal transplant between a 20-year-old patient and a non-relative donor. The Court highlighted the arbitrary and unreasonable nature of the repeated rejections of the application by the statutory authorities casting doubt on the legitimacy of the donation by harbouring a suspicion of organ trade.

A Single Bench of Justice CS Dias held, “Permission for donation cannot be rejected unless there is cogent material to establish a commercial element. When the donor asserts that the donation is made purely out of altruism, in the absence of any credible material to the contrary, the statement has to be accepted. We need to have an optimistic perspective that non-near relatives exist who are genuinely willing to sacrifice their organs or tissues for altruistic consideration.”

Advocate C.M. Mohammed Iquabal represented the Petitioner, while Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was suffering from a chronic kidney disease and required a renal transplant for survival. As he had no near relative to donate a kidney, a family acquaintance voluntarily came forward as a donor. However, their joint application for approval was denied thrice by the DLAC on suspicions of a commercial transaction.

The rejections were based on claims of "weak links" between the donor and recipient and alleged vulnerabilities in the donor’s financial situation. The third rejection Order by the DLAC was challenged before the High Court in the present Writ Petition.

Court’s Analysis

The Kerala High Court pointed out that as per Section 9 (3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (the Act), the donor was not a near relative of the Petitioner.

The Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh v. State of T.N. (2005), wherein it was held that “the object of the statute is to prevent commercial dealings in human organs. If the donor is not a near relative of the recipient, then the Authorisation Committee is to be satisfied that the real purpose of the donation is due to the affection or attachment or for any other special reason.”

Noting that there is no definitive formula to categorically determine whether a donation is altruistic or for a commercial transaction, the Court held that in marginal cases like the present one, the distinction between granting or denying approval for transplantation was separated by a narrow line.

“The commendable intent of the Act is to prohibit commercial transactions in transplantations and to safeguard vulnerable individuals from exploitation. It’s not to be forgotten that some compassionate individuals are willing to selflessly donate their organs to give a new lease of life to a family member or friend,” it remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “On an analysis of the law, the facts and materials on record, and for the reasons already stated above, this Court concludes that Exts.P14, 17, and 21 orders are arbitrary and unreasonable and are liable to be quashed. Given the pressing urgency of the matter i.e., Uvais’s critical medical condition, and this is the fourth round of litigation before this Court, it would be imprudent to relegate the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration. The reality is that time is of the essence, and any further delay may jeopardise Uvais’s life.”

Cause Title: Uvais Muhammad K.C. & Anr. v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:195)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, P. Abdul Nishad, Istinaf Abdullah, Thasneem A.P., Dhilna Dileep and Surya S.R.

Respondents: GP Sunil Kumar Kuriakose

Click here to read/download the Judgment