Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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