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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
