Bombay High Court Directs State of Goa to Notify SOTTO and Implement Organ Transplant Rules Under Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The court held that failure to notify SOTTO and create transparent waiting lists violates the Act and Rules, affecting the right to health of patients.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 133
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by The Mango Foundation (TMF), a registered non-profit organization, seeking enforcement of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 in the State of Goa. The petitioner argued that the State had failed to notify a State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (SOTTO), create transparent waiting lists, designate organ retrieval teams, and establish a dedicated website, thereby violating the statutory framework and the right to health of patients awaiting organ transplants. The respondents, including the State of Goa, Goa Medical College and Hospital, Health Secretary, Union of India, ROTTO Western Region, and NOTTO, were represented by counsel. The court, after hearing arguments, noted that the State had not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. The court directed the State to notify SOTTO within four weeks, ensure linkage with ROTTO and NOTTO, create a criteria-based transparent waiting list, designate organ and tissue retrieval teams in each district, and establish a dedicated website linked to the regional and national networks. The court emphasized that these measures are essential to prevent malpractices, ensure equitable access to organs, and uphold the right to health. The petition was disposed of with these directions, and rule was made absolute.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Enforcement of Statutory Provisions - The petitioner, a registered non-profit organization, sought enforcement of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules, 2014 in Goa - The court held that the State's failure to notify SOTTO and implement the rules amounted to non-compliance with the law, affecting the right to health of citizens - Directions issued for immediate compliance (Paras 4-6, 10-12).

B) Medical Law - Organ Transplantation - State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (SOTTO) - The Act mandates each State to establish SOTTO for coordination of organ transplantation - The court found that Goa had not notified SOTTO, leading to lack of transparent waiting lists and retrieval teams - Held that the State must notify SOTTO within four weeks and ensure linkage with ROTTO and NOTTO (Paras 4-6, 10-12).

C) Medical Law - Organ Transplantation - Transparent Waiting List - The Rules require a criteria-based transparent waiting list for organ allocation - The court directed the State to create such a list and link it to the regional and national networks - Held that transparency is essential to prevent malpractices and ensure equitable access (Paras 4-6, 10-12).

D) Medical Law - Organ Transplantation - Designated Retrieval Teams - The Rules mandate designation of organ and tissue retrieval teams in each district - The court directed the State to designate such teams to facilitate organ retrieval - Held that this is crucial for timely transplantation (Paras 4-6, 10-12).

E) Medical Law - Organ Transplantation - Dedicated Website - The Rules require a dedicated website for organ transplantation information - The court directed the State to create a website linked to ROTTO and NOTTO - Held that this promotes transparency and public awareness (Paras 4-6, 10-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State of Goa has failed to notify a State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (SOTTO) and implement the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Rules, 2014, thereby violating the rights of patients awaiting organ transplants.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court disposed of the PIL with directions to the State of Goa to notify SOTTO within four weeks, ensure linkage with ROTTO and NOTTO, create a criteria-based transparent waiting list, designate organ and tissue retrieval teams in each district, and establish a dedicated website linked to the regional and national networks. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Enforcement of statutory provisions
  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Organ transplantation regulation
  • State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (SOTTO) notification
  • Transparent waiting list
  • Designated retrieval teams
  • Dedicated website
  • Compliance with Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules
  • 2014
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019:BHC-GOA:2292-DB

Public Interest Litigation WP No.16 of 2018

2019-08-07

M.S. Sonak, Nutan D. Sardessai

2019:BHC-GOA:2292-DB

Mr. Wilbur Menezes for Petitioner; Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Deep Shirodkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3; Mr. Mahesh Amonkar for Respondent No.4

State of Goa, Goa Medical College and Hospital, Health Secretary, Union of India, Regional & State Organ & Tissue Transplant Organization (ROTTO), Western Region, National Organ & Tissue Transplant Organization (NOTTO)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation seeking enforcement of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules, 2014 in the State of Goa.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought directions to the State of Goa and Union of India to notify a State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (SOTTO) with transparent waiting lists, designated retrieval teams, and a dedicated website linked to ROTTO and NOTTO.

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged that the State of Goa had failed to implement the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, thereby violating the rights of patients awaiting organ transplants.

Issues

Whether the State of Goa has failed to notify a State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (SOTTO) as required under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules, 2014? Whether the State of Goa has failed to create transparent waiting lists, designate organ retrieval teams, and establish a dedicated website for organ transplantation?

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the State's inaction violates the statutory framework and the right to health of patients. The respondents did not dispute the need for compliance but sought time to implement the provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The State is obligated to implement the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rules, 2014, including notification of SOTTO, creation of transparent waiting lists, designation of retrieval teams, and establishment of a dedicated website, to ensure equitable access to organ transplantation and uphold the right to health.

Judgment Excerpts

This PIL litigation seeks enforcement of some of the significant provisions of 'The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994' and 'The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014'. The Petitioner, a registered not for profit organization committed to pursue socio-economic and socio-legal issues, has instituted this petition, seeking the following reliefs...

Procedural History

The PIL was filed in 2018. The court reserved judgment on 31st July 2019 and pronounced on 7th August 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994:
  • The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs State of Goa to Notify SOTTO and Implement Organ Transplant Rules Under Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The court held that failure to notify SOTTO and create transparent waiting lists violates the Act...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Civil Revision Petitions in Suit for Partition and Injunction — Trial Court Erred in Dismissing Applications for Appointment of Advocate Commissioner and Interim Injunction Without Proper Application of Mind. The court held...