Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of a kidney donation proposal by the Authorization Committee and the Appellate Authority under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The first petitioner (donor) and second petitioner (recipient) are cousins, not falling within the definition of 'near relatives' under Section 2(i) of the Act. The second petitioner suffers from end-stage renal disease and requires a kidney transplant. The donor, a single parent with two minor daughters, volunteered to donate his kidney. The Hospital Authorization Committee of Jaslok Hospital approved the transplant after an interview. However, the State Authorization Committee rejected the application, doubting the genuineness of the relationship and the emotional bond between the parties. The Appellate Authority upheld the rejection. The High Court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 9(3) which allows donation by an unrelated person if approved by the Authorization Committee. The Court noted that the Committee's role is to prevent commercial dealings, not to deny genuine altruistic donations. The Court found that the donor had consistently expressed his willingness, and the hospital committee had found no evidence of commercial transaction. The Court held that the rejection was arbitrary and based on hyper-technical grounds. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Authorization Committee and Appellate Authority, and directed the State to grant approval for the transplant. The Court also directed the hospital to ensure compliance with all medical and legal requirements.
Headnote
A) Transplantation Law - Donation by Unrelated Person - Section 9(3) of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - Authorization Committee's Rejection - The donor and recipient were cousins, not 'near relatives' under Section 2(i). The Authorization Committee rejected the application doubting the emotional bond. The High Court held that the Committee's approach was hyper-technical and failed to consider the donor's consistent statements and the hospital committee's approval. The Court allowed the donation, emphasizing that the Act aims to prevent commercial dealings, not to deny genuine altruistic donations. (Paras 1-14) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Interference with Administrative Decisions - The High Court can interfere when the decision of the Authorization Committee is arbitrary, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations. Here, the Committee's rejection was set aside as it ignored material evidence of the donor's willingness and the donee's critical condition. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Authorization Committee and Appellate Authority were justified in rejecting the application for kidney donation by a cousin (not a 'near relative' under the Act) on grounds of insufficient proof of affection and attachment, and whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Authorization Committee and Appellate Authority, and directed the State to grant approval for the kidney transplant. The Court also directed the hospital to ensure compliance with all medical and legal requirements.
Law Points
- Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act
- 1994
- Section 2(i)
- Section 9(3)
- Authorization Committee
- near relative
- unrelated donor
- affection and attachment
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
