Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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