Court rules that prior organ donation by donor’s spouse and unsubstantiated criminal allegations are irrelevant grounds for refusal under Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994
In a significant judgment dated August 19, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Harisankar V. Menon, quashed the rejection orders of an application seeking permission for kidney donation under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The petitioners, Fousiya and another, had challenged the refusal by the authorities to sanction the kidney donation from the second petitioner, who intended to donate a kidney to the first petitioner, a kidney patient undergoing treatment.
The rejection orders, issued by the 4th and 2nd respondents respectively, primarily cited the fact that the donor’s spouse had previously donated a kidney to another individual years ago. Additionally, the authorities pointed to an alleged criminal antecedent of the donor and raised concerns about his alcohol consumption. However, the court found these grounds to be legally untenable and irrelevant under the governing statute and rules.
Justice Menon underscored that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, along with Rule 7(3) of the 2014 Rules, mandates specific criteria for considering organ donation applications. The Act does not provide for rejection based solely on prior donation by a spouse or unverified criminal allegations unless the donor is addicted to drugs, which was not the case here. The court further noted that the impugned orders failed to demonstrate any involvement of commercial transactions or middlemen, which are valid grounds for rejection under the rules.
The court emphasized adherence to principles laid down in earlier Kerala High Court judgments, notablyShereef M. v. State of Kerala and Uvais Muhammad K. C. v. State of Kerala, which clarify the proper framework for evaluating such applications. It directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioners’ application afresh, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. The fresh decision was mandated to be taken expeditiously within ten days.
This judgment reinforces the importance of statutory compliance and safeguards the rights of genuine organ donors and recipients against arbitrary administrative decisions. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting the integrity of organ transplantation processes and ensuring that irrelevant or extraneous considerations do not hinder life-saving medical procedures.
Bottom Line:
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - Rejection of application for organ donation based on irrelevant considerations such as a prior donation by the donor's spouse and allegations of criminal antecedents without adherence to statutory provisions is unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 Section 9, Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 Rule 7(3)
Fousiya v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2969494
