Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh set aside orders rejecting an application for organ transplantation and directed the concerned authority to reconsider the matter within a period of six weeks. The Court ordered that the petitioners be given an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence if any, and that the District Level Authorisation Committee pass fresh orders accordingly.

The first petitioner, a chronic kidney patient without immediate relatives in his family, and the second petitioner, a voluntary kidney donor, approached the authorities for organ transplantation approval. The first petitioner and the husband of the second petitioner were close family friends. Initially, the husband of the second petitioner had expressed willingness to donate his kidney, but due to a blood group mismatch, the second petitioner volunteered instead. The application for transplantation was submitted to the District Level Authorisation Committee.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Retirement Of Colour-Blind Driver | Says Employer Must Reasonably Accommodate Disability Acquired During Service

On 13 December 2024, by Ext.P15 order, the District Level Authorisation Committee rejected the application, concluding that there was an absence of documented affection, emotional attachment, or any special reason justifying the donation. The petitioners filed an appeal, which the High Court in W.P.(C) No.1619/2025 directed to be accepted and decided. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by Ext.P18 order. Subsequently, the petitioners challenged Ext.P18 in W.P.(C) No.17188/2025, leading to an interim order (Ext.P19) directing reconsideration. However, the appeal was again dismissed by Ext.P20, which prompted the present writ petition.

The petitioners contended that the first petitioner’s life was in danger, requiring urgent transplantation, and that Ext.P20 was illegal. They stated undergoing thrice-weekly dialysis, the submission of all required documents, and the genuineness of their relationship. They asserted that refusal would cause irreparable loss. The respondents, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, maintained that both the District Level Authorisation Committee and the appellate authority had carefully considered all aspects, found insufficient proof of personal connection and noting the possibility of commercial involvement.

The District Level Authorisation Committee had considered the lack of a marriage certificate verifying the second petitioner’s relationship with her husband, the absence of his name in the donor's ration card, and the tenuous nature of their connection with the recipient. The appellate authority reiterated the absence of documented emotional ties and deemed the interpersonal relationship vague.

Evidence before the Court included clinical examinations at Lakeshore Hospital indicating a match, the Local Approval Committee's recommendation deeming the second petitioner fit, and a certificate from the Assistant Commissioner of Police affirming that the donation was voluntary and without compulsion or consideration. The second petitioner and her husband filed an affidavit declaring their marriage on 9 December 2007 at Lokamalleswaram Thiruvallur Sree Bhadrakalikavu Temple, supported by a certificate from the temple astrologist and photographs.

Justice N. Nagareesh recorded that "the fact that the 1st petitioner and Sri. Shibulal are friends and have worked together is not disputed. There is no circumstances to doubt the veracity of the said statement." The Court further stated that "the absence of marriage certificate and non-inclusion of the name of the husband of the 2nd petitioner in the ration card cannot be reason to doubt the relationship between the 2nd petitioner and her husband."

Also Read: Manager Qualifies As Employer Under Gratuity Act | Kerala High Court Upholds Award Despite Proprietor’s Death And Heirs’ Objection

The Court observed: "Whether the families are interacting even now physically, is no ground to disbelieve the element of altruism." It found that the rejection was "on untenable grounds" given the evidence and the life-threatening condition of the first petitioner. The Court also noted that the evidence indicated no compelling reason to doubt the donor’s altruistic intent.

The Court set aside Ext.P15 and Ext.P20 orders. It remitted the petitioners’ application for organ transplantation to the District Level Authorisation Committee, directing: "The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application and pass orders afresh within a period of six weeks, giving opportunity to the petitioners to adduce fresh evidence, if any."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Shiraz Abdulla M.S., Shri. Vishnu Dev C.S., Shri. K. Abdul Nassar

For the Respondents: Smt. K. Amminikutty, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Musthafa N P & Another v. State Level Organ Transplantation Authorization Committee & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:57097

Case Number: WP(C) No. 25749 of 2025

Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh