Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Kerala High Court Questions DLAC’s Denial of Organ Transplant Authorization: “Cannot Find Why Versions of Parties Are Wholly Inconsistent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that questions the procedural integrity of organ transplant authorizations, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Devan Ramachandran, set aside an order by the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) which had denied authorization for an organ transplant citing alleged inconsistencies in the donor’s altruism.

Justice Ramachandran, in his incisive observation, stated, “I cannot find why the ‘DLAC’ has found that versions of the ‘parties’ who appeared before them, to be ‘wholly inconsistent’.” This remark came in the context of a writ petition challenging the DLAC’s decision to deny authorization for a transplant between two individuals, alleged to lack altruistic motives.

The petitioners, represented by Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar, contended that the DLAC’s findings in their order (Ext.P12) were egregiously improper, especially given the clear statements of affection and love from the donor towards the recipient. In contrast, the learned Government Pleader, Sri Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, defended the DLAC’s decision, highlighting the need for careful scrutiny in cases where the donor comes from a disadvantaged class.

Justice Ramachandran’s judgment scrutinized the DLAC’s interpretation of the relationship between the donor and the recipient, finding no inconsistency in their statements. The court emphasized the need for a fair and just process, especially in life-and-death situations like organ transplants. “The ‘DLAC’ appears to have taken the view being swayed by the social status of the donor, who appears to be from a disadvantaged one,” Justice Ramachandran noted, addressing concerns of potential exploitation in such delicate cases.

The High Court directed the DLAC to reconsider the matter, taking into account all relevant documents and statements, including the “Certificate of Altruism.” The judgment mandates a fresh order from the DLAC within one week of receiving a copy of the judgment, highlighting the urgent nature of the case due to the life-threatening situation of the recipient.

This ruling has shed light on the critical role of judicial oversight in administrative decisions, especially in matters as sensitive and vital as organ transplantation, where the balance between procedural rigidity and human empathy must be carefully maintained.

Date of Decision: 6 November 2023

RAMACHANDRAN P. VS STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News