Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M.Maya Boopathi (first petitioner) and C.Sudarmani Nathan (second petitioner), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The first petitioner, aged 40 and suffering from end-stage kidney failure requiring dialysis twice a week, sought a kidney transplant from the second petitioner, who is his cousin. The second petitioner voluntarily offered to donate one of his kidneys, and medical tests confirmed blood group compatibility. However, since the second petitioner is not a 'near relative' as defined under Section 2(i) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, the second respondent hospital (Kauvery Hospital, Tirunelveli) required a No Objection Certificate (NoC) from the second petitioner's estranged wife (third respondent) before forwarding the application to the first respondent (Authorization Committee). The second petitioner and his wife had been separated for over five years, and a divorce petition was pending. Both parents of the second petitioner were deceased. The petitioners approached the court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their representation dated 09.12.2024 and grant approval for the kidney transplant without insisting on the NoC from the third respondent. The court noted that the third respondent was served but did not appear. By consent of the other parties, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The court observed that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 does not mandate spousal consent for organ donation. The Authorization Committee is an expert body competent to assess the genuineness of the donation and the donor's consent. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within two weeks, without insisting on the NoC from the third respondent. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Transplantation Law - Organ Donation - Spousal Consent - Section 9(3) of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - The court considered whether the Authorization Committee could insist on a No Objection Certificate from the donor's estranged wife. The court held that the Act does not mandate spousal consent for organ donation and directed the Committee to consider the application on its own merits without insisting on such NoC. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to direct the Authorization Committee to consider the petitioners' representation dated 09.12.2024 within a specified time frame, as the insistence on spousal NoC was not legally sustainable. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Authorization Committee can insist on a No Objection Certificate from the estranged spouse of a donor who is not a near relative, before granting approval for kidney transplantation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of. The first respondent (Authorization Committee) is directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 09.12.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting on the No Objection Certificate from the third respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Spousal consent not mandatory for organ donation
- Authorization Committee must consider application on merits
- Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act
- 1994 does not require NoC from spouse
- Writ of Mandamus lies to compel consideration of representation
