High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 06 KL CK 0031

ABOOBACKER, S/O.MARIYUMMA vs STATE OF KERALA

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.B.Suresh Kumar
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
21241 of 2017 (E)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

51 paragraphs · 413 words
1.

The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are

patients suffering from renal failure. It is stated that all

of them have been advised that kidney transplantation is

the only alternative available to save their lives.

2.

The Transplantation of Human Organs and

Tissues Act, 1994 (the Act) as also the rules made

thereunder, viz, Transplantation of Human Organs and

Tissues Rules, 2014 (the Rules) contemplate

transplantation of organ from non-relatives only by

reason of affection or attachment towards recipient or for

other special reasons. In other words, the Act and the

Rules prohibit commercial dealings between donor and

recipient for organ.

3.

Petitioners are persons who are unable to find

out donors of organ from among their relatives. As such,

as noted above, transplantation is possible in their cases

only if somebody is willing to donate their organ for any

special reason without involving any commercial dealings.

It is stated by the petitioners that there are persons who

are willing to donate their organ for special reasons and

such persons could be located only if an appropriate

advertisement is given in the media for the said purpose.

It is the case of the petitioners that the print media is not

permitting advertisement inviting donors, who are willing

to donate their organs for special reasons. According to

the petitioners, there is no prohibition in advertising for

donors and the question as to whether there exists a

special reason is a matter for the Authorisation committee

to decide before the transplantation. The petitioners, in

the circumstances, preferred representations before the

Government for permission to advertise their requirement

and the writ petitions are preferred alleging that the

Government is not taking any action on the said

representations.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as also the learned State Attorney.

5.

The learned State Attorney, on instructions,

submitted that petitioners can advertise without

contravening the provisions contained in the Act and the

Rules.

6.

On a perusal of the provisions contained in the

Act and the Rules, I also do not find any impediment in

advertising the requirement of the petitioners for, the

statute provides for a check to ascertain whether the

donation is in accordance with the provisions contained in

the Act and Rules, in the form of permission by the

Authorization Committee, before the transplantation is

undertaken.

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are

allowed and the petitioners are granted permission to

advertise their need for human organ in print media.