High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Donations Made Out of Love and Affection Must Be Accepted at Face Value: Madras High Court Orders Direct Submission for Kidney Transplants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that patients in need of kidney transplants can directly submit their applications to the Authorisation Committee, bypassing hospitals. The decision, delivered by Justice G.R. Swaminathan on May 30, 2024, underscores the importance of facilitating altruistic donations and protecting donor rights. This ruling addresses procedural delays and aims to streamline the approval process while emphasizing the need for comprehensive guidelines from the state government.

The case involved multiple writ petitions filed by patients suffering from renal failure, who had identified willing donors not related to them by blood. The petitioners, admitted in various hospitals, faced bureaucratic obstacles as the hospitals hesitated to forward their applications to the Authorisation Committee due to fear of potential repercussions if complications arose post-transplant. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to expedite the approval process and ensure their life-saving procedures could proceed without undue delay.

Direct Application Process: Justice Swaminathan observed that the reluctance of hospitals to forward transplant applications due to fear of backlash created unnecessary procedural delays. The court ordered that applicants be allowed to submit their forms directly to the Authorisation Committee. “Applications can be submitted in person, through registered post, or online mode,” the judge specified, highlighting the need for flexibility and efficiency in handling such critical cases.

Donor Welfare and State Guidelines:

The judgment placed significant emphasis on the welfare of organ donors. The court mandated that donors receive post-operative care, including medical insurance and financial support. “It is the duty of the recipient to take care of the post-operative requirements of the donor,” stated Justice Swaminathan, calling for the state government to issue clear guidelines to standardize the application submission process and donor protection measures.

“The statement by a donor that he or she is making the donation out of love and affection for the recipient must be taken at its face value, unless there is definite material evidencing the passing of consideration,” remarked Justice Swaminathan.

Balancing Altruism with Regulation: The court underscored the need to balance regulatory oversight with the facilitation of genuine altruistic donations. The judgment acknowledged the statutory framework designed to prevent commercial exploitation but emphasized that undue suspicion should not hinder legitimate, altruistic donations.

Burden of Proof: The court clarified that the burden of proving the absence of commercial transactions should not be disproportionately placed on the applicants. “Too much burden cannot be laid on the shoulders of the applicants. Unless there is definite material to establish that there are financial dealings involving the parties, permission ought not to be withheld or rejected,” the judgment read.

The Madras High Court’s ruling marks a significant step towards simplifying the kidney transplantation process and safeguarding donor rights. By allowing direct applications to the Authorisation Committee and emphasizing donor welfare, the judgment addresses critical gaps in the current procedural framework. This decision is expected to influence future cases and encourage the state government to issue clear guidelines, thereby reinforcing the legal framework for organ donations.

Date of Decision: May 30, 2024

Sudha Mathesan & Balamani Sabapathi vs. The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation) & Others

Similar News