Kerala High Court
Rasheedkutty vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:55032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12770 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 RASHEEDKUTTY,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. HAMEEDKUTTY,
KOLLAKAPADETTATHIL HOUSE,
MANAPPALLY NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690574
2 LIJI P.M.,
AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O. MOHANAN, PUTHUVAL NIKARTH,
CHERTHALA P.O., VAYALAR EAST,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SHRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
SMT.THASNEEM A.P.
SMT.SURYA S.R.
SHRI.SUBRAHMANIAN T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
2025:KER:55032
W.P.(C) No.12770/2025
:2:
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE CONVENER,
STATE LEVEL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE,
FUNCTIONING UNDER KERALA STATE ORGAN AND
TISSUE TRANSPLANT ORGANIZATION, 1ST FLOOR,
OLD HOUSE SURGEON QUARTERS,
NEAR SUPER SPECIALITY BLOCK,
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE
FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS
ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
H.M.T. COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, PIN - 683503
5 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHERTHALA
DY.S.P.OFFICE, CHERTHALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688524
BY ADV.
SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.07.2025, THE COURT ON 23.07.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55032
W.P.(C) No.12770/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.12770 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The 1st petitioner is a kidney patient. The 2nd petitioner informed her willingness to donate her kidney to the 1st petitioner. Application was submitted for authorisation of kidney transplantation. The application was accompanied by all supporting documents.
2. However, the District Level Authorisation Committee, Ernakulam rejected the application as per Ext.P11 order dated 10.01.2025. The petitioners thereupon filed Ext.P12 appeal under Section 17 of the 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 :4: Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The appellate authority rejected the appeal holding that the connection between the 2nd petitioner and the 1st petitioner is not properly established. There is certain inconsistency in the background stories. The donor is unaware of the long term consequence of donation. The donor's husband is also unaware of any of the risks of donation. The appellate authority held that the appellants failed to establish a credible link between the donor and the recipient. In the circumstances, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P14 order dated 19.03.2025.
4. The petitioners have challenged Exts.P11 and P14. The petitioners alleged that the 2nd respondent has not considered any of the grounds stated in Ext.P12 appeal. The 3rd respondent has considered the issue in a 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 :5: shabby manner. The 2nd petitioner had clearly stated that she was introduced with the wife of the 1st petitioner from the hospital. However, the 2nd respondent stated in Ext.P14 order that the connection between the donor and the recipient is to be through the office of the wife of the recipient. The wife of the recipient is not working anywhere.
5. The major reason stated in Ext.P11 order is that the 2nd petitioner had taken a decision earlier to donate her organ to one Ashwin. It is not a reason to reject the application. Economic disparities between parties pointed out in Ext.P11 order is incorrect. Both the petitioners are not economically sound. Exts.P11 and P14 orders are therefore liable to be set aside.
6. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to the 4th respondent, the 2nd petitioner-donor is a catering worker. She stated that she 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 :6: became acquainted with the 1st petitioner-recipient about 1½ years ago at Medical Trust Hospital. They developed a family friendship. Initially, the 2nd petitioner had decided to donate her kidney to another patient. However, during the course of procedures, the said intended recipient passed away. No police verification certificate was submitted along with the application.
7. The DySP, Alappuzha later reported that the 2nd petitioner did not co-operate with the police enquiry and refused to provide a statement. It is inferred that her motivation for kidney donation is monetary gain.
8. The 4th respondent pointed out that in the coastal areas of Alappuzha District, where the donor resides, there is a surge in organ donation which raises concerns about possible organised trafficking within vulnerable communities. The DLAC evaluated all factors outlined in Rule 7 of the THOT Rules, 2014 and came to a 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 :7: conclusion that the requirements for establishing a credible altruistic link were not met. The writ petition is without any merit.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
10. The application for transplantation of human organ submitted by the petitioners is supported by Exts.P1 and P1(a) identification certificates, Ext.P2 certificate of the President of Thazhava Grama Panchayat, Ext.P3 joint affidavit of the petitioners, Ext.P5 consent of the 2nd petitioner, Ext.P6 consent of the husband of the 2nd petitioner and Ext.P7 consent of the mother of the 2nd petitioner.
11. The District Level Authorisation Committee considered the application. The DLAC noted that according to the 2nd petitioner-donor, she is a catering 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 :8: worker, who became acquainted with the 1st petitioner- recipient approximately 1½ years ago at Medical Trust Hospital. Over time, they developed a family friendship.
12. As there was no police verification certificate submitted along with the application, the DLAC sought police verification report. The DySP, Alappuzha reported that the 2nd petitioner had previously applied for a police clearance certificate to donate her kidney to one Ashwin, a native of Thrissur. It was during her earlier medical examination at Medical Trust Hospital that the 2nd petitioner met the current recipient. As the original intended recipient Sri. Ashwin passed away, the 2nd petitioner has now applied to donate her kidney to the 1st petitioner.
13. The Committee therefore concluded that the conditions of voluntariness and altruisum have not been satisfied in the case. The claimed relationship has 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 :9: not been properly established. Therefore, the application was rejected.
14. The appellate authority noted that the 2nd petitioner was unaware of the long term consequences of kidney donation. The 2nd petitioner assumed that these precautions are only for a period of maximum six months. She is unaware of the need for infection prevention. The husband is an inconsistent consumer of diabetic medication. He is also unaware of any of the risks of donation. The appellate authority concluded that there is reason to suspect that the donation is not entirely voluntary.
15. There is no dispute that the 2nd petitioner had earlier decided to donate kidney to another patient called Ashwin. It was during the medical examination at Medical Trust Hospital that the 2nd petitioner got acquainted with the 1st petitioner. The earlier proposed 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 : 10 : recipient passed away before the 2nd petitioner could donate her kidney. It is thereafter that the 2nd petitioner has offered kidney to the 1st petitioner.
16. The DLAC, which interacted with the 2nd petitioner, came to the conclusion that the conditions of voluntariness and altruism have not been satisfied. The 2nd petitioner did not co-operate with the police enquiry and refused to provide a statement. In the facts of the case, the DLAC inferred that the motive of the 2nd petitioner for kidney donation is monetary gain than altruism. I find that the DLAC was justified in coming to that conclusion in the circumstances of the case.
17. I have perused the appellate order at Ext.P14. The appellate authority has considered the relevant grounds urged by the petitioners in Ext.P12 appeal. The contention of the petitioners that the grounds urged by the petitioners were not considered by the 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 : 11 : appellate authority is unsustainable.
In the circumstances, I find no illegality in Exts.P11 and P14 orders. The writ petition is without merit. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/21.07.2025 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 : 12 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12770/2025 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER HUSBAND DATED 08.07.2024 Exhibit P1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HER MOTHER DATED 08.07.2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 30.11.2024 Exhibit P2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY DATED NIL Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONERS DATED 22.11.2024 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2024 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2024 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2024 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE MOTHER OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2024 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 3 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 09.12.2024 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 11 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 09.12.2024 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).NO.44160/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.12.2024 Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2025 2025:KER:55032 W.P.(C) No.12770/2025 : 13 : Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.01.2025.
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.2422/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21.01.2025.
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT)NO.795/2025/H&FWD ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DATED 19.03.2025.