Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

 

Similar News