Sujithra vs The State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 11738 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sujithra vs The State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2025

                                                        2025:KER:94963
WP(C) No.33748 of 2025
                                   ..1..

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                         WP(C) NO. 33748 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

      1      SUJITHRA
             AGED 30 YEARS
             D/O. BABU, THEKKADATHU MATHILIL, THRIKKADAVOOR P.O.,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601

      2      AMINA K.P.
             AGED 65 YEARS
             W/O. ABOOBACKER, KOOMBRAPARAYIL HOUSE, ALOOR,
             PATTITHARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679534


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.V.JAYADEEP MENON
             SMT.P.KRISHNAPRIYA




RESPONDENT/S:

      1      THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
             GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (B) DEPARTMENT,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
             695001

      2      THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE FOR RENAL
             TRANSPLANTATION
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT
             MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
             PIN - 683104
                                                        2025:KER:94963
WP(C) No.33748 of 2025
                                   ..2..

      3      THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ORGAN AND TISSUE
             TRANSPLANT ORGANIZATION
             IST FLOOR, OLD HOUSE SURGEON QUARTERS, NEAR SUPER
             SPECIALTY BLOCK, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695011


             BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2025, THE COURT ON 10.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                      2025:KER:94963
WP(C) No.33748 of 2025
                                         ..3..




                                   JUDGMENT

The first petitioner is the proposed donor of the second

petitioner, who is facing the end stage of kidney disease. They have

approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to passing of Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4 orders and to quash Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4 orders rejecting permission for renal transplantation.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to re-consider Exhibit-P1 joint application at the earliest possible time and accord sanction to the petitioners for renal transplantation considering the ill health of the 2nd petitioner.

c) Issue such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may consider appropriate in the nature and circumstances of the case."

2. The husband of the first petitioner/donor and the son of the

second petitioner/recipient have good relations and thus, the first

petitioner decided to donate her one kidney to the second petitioner due

to the affinity and attachment with her family. However, the joint

applications filed by the petitioners for granting permission for organ

transplantation were rejected by the second respondent vide Ext.P3

order. Though an appeal was filed before the first respondent against

Ext.P3 order, the same was also rejected as per Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved 2025:KER:94963

..4..

by this, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the third

respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first

respondent as well as the second respondent has not properly

considered their applications and miserably failed to conduct an enquiry

by considering the documents submitted by the petitioners. It is further

submitted that there is disparity between the statements recorded by

respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out

that in Ext.P3 order, it is stated that the donor submitted before the

committee that her husband worked with the son of the recipient before

their marriage in 2013; and it is further stated that the husband of the

donor submitted that he had worked with the son of the recipient prior

to his own marriage. However, the first respondent, in Ext.P4 order,

stated that the donor's husband worked at the Surya Wedding Centre

with the recipient's son from 2013 until the COVID outbreak. According

to the learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, there is disparity in the

statements recorded by respondents 1 and 2. The period during which

the donor's husband worked with the recipient's son is not properly 2025:KER:94963

..5..

considered by the first respondent in arriving at the conclusion. The

learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the police

verification report also states that the donor has voluntarily decided to

donate her kidney and she was made aware of the penal provisions. The

learned counsel also argued that it was clear from the report of the

police that there is no commercial transaction involved between the

donor and the recipient; and the donor agreed to donate her kidney out

of altruism. Hence, the learned counsel sought for a reconsideration of

the issue by the second respondent.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, on the

other hand, submitted that the petitioners miserably failed to prove the

link between them, who are the donor and the recipient. There was no

document at all to prove their relationship. The period during which the

husband of the donor and the son of the recipient had worked together

also did not match. Further, it was found by respondents 2 and 3 that

the donor was a 30-year-old mother of two children aged 9 and 11

years; and hence, she, being an illiterate person, without awareness of

the consequences of the transplantation, has agreed to donate her

kidney. It is also pointed out that Ext.P4 order states that the husband

of the donor was not even aware of the name of the recipient's son with

whom he alleged to have been working for many years. Therefore, 2025:KER:94963

..6..

according to the learned Standing Counsel, the rejection for permission

for organ transplantation by the respondents was after proper

consideration of the entire issue and there is no need for this Court to

interfere with the same.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.

The donor is a 30-year-old mother of two children aged 9 and 11 years.

The explanation regarding the link between the donor and the recipient

is through the donor's husband and the recipient's son. According to the

donor, her husband worked with the recipient's son prior to their

marriage in 2013, whereas the recipient's son stated that the donor's

husband worked with him in the Surya Textiles from 2016 to 2021.

Ext.P4 order also reveals that the donor was educated only up to the 9th

standard and she is unable to read and write malayalam. The donor's

husband, when asked to name the recipient's son, could not state his

real name and said he called him "Chetta." The recipient's son,

however, stated that the donor's husband used to call him "Thaju" and

sometimes "Anna". Hence, it is clear from Exts.P3 and P4 orders that

there were discrepancies in the statements given and the petitioners

failed to establish a clear relationship which led to the proposed organ

donation.

2025:KER:94963

..7..

7. Rule 7(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues

Rules, 2014, reads as follows:

"(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relatives, the Authorisation Committee shall, -

(i) evaluate that there is no commercial transaction between the recipient and the donor and that no payment has been made to the donor or promised to be made to the donor or any other person;

(ii) prepare an explanation of the link between them and the circumstances which led to the offer being made;

(iii) examine the reasons why the donor wishes to donate;

(iv) examine the documentary evidence of the link, e.g., proof the they have lived together, etc.;

(v) examine old photographs showing the donor and the recipient together;

(vi) evaluate that there is no middleman or tout involved;

(vii) evaluate that financial status of the donor and the recipient asking them to give appropriate evidence of their vocation and income for the previous three financial years and any gross disparity between the status of the two must be evaluated in the backdrop of the objective preventing commercial dealing;

(viii) ensure that the donor is not a drug addict;

(ix) ensure that the near relative or if near relative is not available, any adult person related to donor by blood or marriage of the proposed unrelated donor is interviewed regarding awareness about his or intention to donate an organ or tissue, the authenticity of the link between the donor and the recipient, and the reasons for donation, and any strong views or disagreement or objection of such kin shall also be recorded and taken note of."

8. As regards Rule 7(3)(i), the police verification report states that

the donor has voluntarily decided to donate her kidney. Hence, it cannot 2025:KER:94963

..8..

be said that there was a commercial transaction involved in the

proposed kidney donation.

9. Insofar as the link between the donor and the recipient is

concerned, there occurred some discrepancies in the statements given

by them. However, the second respondent as well as the third

respondent recorded the statements in a different manner and there

appears to be some mistakes in recording the period during which the

donor's husband and the recipient's son had worked together. It is an

admitted fact that the donor and her husband are illiterate persons and

it would have been a reason for not adducing proper evidence to prove

their link and the period during which the donor's husband and the

recipient's son had worked together. Since this is a case wherein the

police had reported that there do not exist any commercial transaction

on the basis of the police verification report, I find that one more

opportunity has to be given to the petitioners to prove their link

between the donor and the recipient. Though certain photographs were

produced, the committee found that they were recent and not old.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I

find that one more opportunity is to be granted to the petitioners to

prove their contentions before the second respondent.

2025:KER:94963

..9..

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P3 and P4 orders are

set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter

afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioners to adduce further

evidence to prove their contentions, and pass appropriate orders within

a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-

2025:KER:94963

..10..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 33748 OF 2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION IN FORM 3 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES RULES, 2014 DATED 23.04.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE HOSPITAL. Exhibit-P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF TRANSPLANTATION FROM LIVING DONOR UNDER FORM 11 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES RULES, 2014 DATED 29.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE HOSPITAL.

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN.

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2025 IN THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES RULES, 2014.

Exhibit-P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 14.07.2025 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit-P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.08.2025 TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.