POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

Delhi High Court mandates strict timelines for transplant approvals, addressing systemic delays under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has issued a landmark ruling addressing significant delays in the approval process for organ transplants. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to strict timelines to avoid prolonged suffering for patients. The judgment highlights the deficiencies in the current system under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and its 2014 Rules, mandating timely decisions to uphold patients' rights to health and life.

The case was brought by Amar Singh Bhatia, a retired Indian Air Force officer diagnosed with end-stage chronic kidney disease in 2017. Despite undergoing treatment and meeting all legal requirements for a kidney transplant, Bhatia faced repeated delays in obtaining approval from the Authorisation Committee, ultimately leading to his death in 2021. Bhatia's petition sought directives for expeditious processing and approval of his transplant application, highlighting systemic issues within the approval process.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh underscored the critical nature of timely decisions in organ transplant cases. The court noted, "The state of suspended animation, wherein neither approval nor rejection is conveyed, is contrary to the letter and spirit of the 1994 Act and the 2014 Rules." Emphasizing the urgency required, the court stated that delays in approval processes could have life-threatening consequences for patients awaiting transplants.

Inadequate Procedures and Lack of Timelines:The court identified significant gaps in the implementation of the 1994 Act and the 2014 Rules, particularly the absence of prescribed timelines for various stages of the approval process. Justice Singh highlighted, "The absence of timelines under Rules 21 and 23 of the 2014 Rules for holding pre-transplantation interviews by the Authorisation Committee has led to delays." The court stressed the need for a structured timeline to ensure that patients do not suffer due to bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Directive for Fixed Timelines:

To address these issues, the court mandated specific timelines for each stage of the transplant approval process, including:

  • Processing applications within 10 days of submission.
  • Verification of documents within 14 days.
  • Scheduling and conducting interviews within 2 weeks of document verification.
  • Making decisions within 24 hours of interviews.

Justice Singh remarked, "Quick decision-making is crucial not just for the donor or the recipient, but also for their respective families."

Justice Prathiba M. Singh stated, "The 1994 Act and the 2014 Rules definitely do not contemplate months together of deliberation in such cases. The reason is obvious - if a particular application is to be approved then the same has to be done in a time-bound manner so that the patients do not continue to suffer."

The Delhi High Court's ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring timely and fair processes in life-saving medical procedures. By mandating strict timelines for organ transplant approvals, the court has taken a significant step towards safeguarding patients' rights and addressing systemic delays. This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications, ensuring that the regulatory framework aligns with the urgent needs of patients requiring organ transplants.

Date of Decision: January 4, 2024

Amar Singh Bhatia & Anr. vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors.

Latest Legal News