Kerala HC Says Criminal Antecedents Of Donor Irrelevant For Organ Donation

Case Background

• The case title is “Radhakrishna Pillai v. District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs”.
• The Case was heard by the High Court of Kerala.
• A patient of a kidney ailment appealed to the Court, challenging the decision of a District Level Authorization Committee for Human Organ Transplantation.
• The Committee had denied his application to be an organ donor due to the donor's involvement in multiple criminal offences.

Contentions of the Petitioner

• The Petitioner argued that such an order would be unsustainable because there is no legal prohibition against criminals donating organs.
• He admitted that the earlier Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, which had been in effect since 1994, required that a donor have no criminal antecedents, but that the 2014 Rules had replaced it. As a result, the new rules do not contain such a provision.

Contentions of the Respondent

• The Government Pleader agreed with the Petitioner that no provision in the Act or Rules prevents a person convicted of a crime from donating organs.
• However, the Government's attorney argued that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act.
• Observations of the Court
• Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that there is no such thing as a criminal kidney, liver, or heart. An organ from a person with no criminal history is identical to a person with no criminal record. We are all infused with human blood.
• The Court found no support for the authorisation committee's position while reviewing the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules.
• It was observed that the Legislature only intended to prohibit commercial dealings in human organs and tissues. Section 9(6) states that permission can be denied only if the Acts and Rules are not followed.

Conclusion

• Hence, the Court noted that neither the Rules nor the Act prohibits a criminal from donating his organs to a willing recipient. It stated that it is illogical to deny a friend's request to donate his kidney to a man on his deathbed.
• Thus, the Court granted the petition and reversed the impugned decision.
• The Authorization Committee was also directed to reconsider the Petitioner's request.