Kidney donation to husband’s friend: Kerala HC directs reconsideration of application
Kerala High Court: The present petition was filed by Petitioner 1 who was a kidney patient and needed a kidney transplant. Petitioner 2, his friend’s wife, was willing to donate her kidney to him but the application was rejected by the District Level Authorisation Committee (‘District Committee’) and the State Level Organ Transplantation Authorization Committee (‘Appellate Authority’) because they doubted the element of altruism. A Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J., , observed that the rejection had been based on untenable grounds, set aside the impugned orders, and directed that the application be reconsidered.
Background
Petitioner 1 was a chronic kidney patient undergoing a minimum of three dialysis in a week to sustain his life and had no immediate relative who could donate their kidney to him. Petitioner 1 and the husband of petitioner 2 worked together and were close family friends. The husband of petitioner 2 expressed his willingness to donate one of his kidneys, but the blood group did not match and hence petitioner 2 consented to donate instead. The Organ Transplantation Local Approval Committee recommended that petitioner 2 was fit to be a voluntary kidney donor. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kunnamkulam, stated that petitioner 2 has offered kidney upon her free will, without any compulsion, influence or intent of reward or consideration and that her altruism was genuine.
The application for transplantation was rejected by the District Committee in a meeting held on 13-12-2024. The petitioners preferred a statutory appeal, but the Appellate Authority dismissed it. The dismissal order was challenged by the petitioners in a writ petition wherein this Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the application, but it was again dismissed.
The District Committee had found that the evidence of relationship between the petitioners was insufficient and held that it was highly unlikely that a 42-year-old woman, the mother of two minor girl children, would voluntarily donate her kidney based on a tenuous relationship, without any significant or ongoing connection to the recipient’s family. The District Committee also noted no valid certificate was provided to verify that Petitioner 2 and her husband were married and that her husband’s name was also not on the family ration card. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal, observed that the lack of a convincing rationale combined with vague and unsubstantiated inter-personal connections, necessitated a more cautious approach.
The Senior Government Pleader while resisting the writ petition submitted that the District Committee concluded that there was complete absence of documented affection, emotional attachment or any special reason to justify the proposed organ donation. The inter-personal connections and emotional bond were not substantiated and hence the possibility of commercial element in the organ donation could not be totally ruled out.
Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the affidavit filed by petitioner 2 and her husband stating that they got married on 09-12-2007 and the photographs that indicated they were married. The District Committee and the Appellate Authority had doubted the element of altruism on the ground that the marriage certificate of the petitioner 2 had not been produced. The Court observed that the absence of a marriage certificate and non-inclusion of the name of the husband in the ration card could not be the reason to doubt the relationship between petitioner 2 and her husband.
The Court found that the rejection of the petitioners’ application for organ transplantation was on untenable grounds and while allowing the petition, quashed the orders of the District Committee and the appellate authority. The Court directed the application to be remitted back to the District Committee to be reconsidered afresh within six weeks, keeping in mind the serious condition of petitioner 1.
[Musthafa N.P. v. State Level Organ Transplantation Authorization Committee, WP(C) No. 25749 of 2025, decided on 01-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Shiraz Abdulla M.S., Vishnu Dev C.S., K. Abdul Nassar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: K. Amminikutty, Sr. Government Pleader.