Allowed

Ajai Jacob v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2017WP(C)/23487/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, suffering from renal failure, sought permission to advertise for organ donors in print media to find a non-relative donor. The High Court examined the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and Rules and found no impediment to such advertising. The writ petition was allowed to grant this permission subject to committee authorization.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to advertise the need for a human organ in the print media.

Ajai Jacob Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017/26TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23487 of 2017 (I) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

AJAI JACOB S/O. JACOB ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, CHERIYANAD P.O., CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.689 511.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

----------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.S.BRUZE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 23487 of 2017 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NEPHROLOGIST, DR.RAJESH JOSEPH, BELIEVERS CHURCH MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA DATED 26.6.2017. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.7.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P[C] NO.22551/2017 DATED 7.7.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶20

¶21

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.23487 of 2017

¶23

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2017

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner is a patient suffering from renal failure. It is stated that he has been advised that kidney transplantation is the only alternative available to save his life.

¶26

The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (the Act) as also the rules made thereunder, viz, Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (the Rules) contemplate transplantation of organ from non-relatives only by reason of affection or attachment towards recipient or for other special reasons. In other words, the Act and the Rules prohibit commercial dealings between donor and recipient for organ.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.23487 of 2017 -2-

¶28

The petitioner is a person who is unable to find out donors of organ from among his relatives. As such, as noted above, transplantation is possible in his case only if somebody is willing to donate their organ for any special reason without involving any commercial dealings. It is stated by the petitioner that there are persons who are willing to donate their organ for special reasons and such persons could be located only if an appropriate advertisement is given in the media for the said purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that the print media is not permitting advertisement inviting donors, who are willing to donate their organs for special reasons. According to the petitioner, there is no prohibition in advertising for donors and the question as to whether there exists a special reason is a matter for the Authorisation committee to decide before the transplantation. The petitioner, in the circumstances, preferred a representation before the Government for permission to advertise his requirement,

¶29

W.P.(C) No.23487 of 2017 -3-

¶30

and the writ petition is preferred alleging that the Government is not taking any action on the said representation.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶32

also the learned State Attorney.

¶33

The learned State Attorney, on instructions, submitted that petitioner can advertise without contravening the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules.

¶34

On a perusal of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules, I also do not find any impediment in advertising the requirement of the petitioner for, the statute provides for a check, to ascertain whether the donation is in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules, in the form of a permission by the Authorization Committee, before the transplantation is undertaken.

¶35

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed

¶36

W.P.(C) No.23487 of 2017 -4-

¶37

and the petitioner is granted permission to advertise the

¶38

need for human organ in print media.

¶39

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶40

bpr

Ajai Jacob v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajai Jacob v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Mary Rose Joseph Vs Director, Central Board of Secondary Education

Petrishia Luncing Christopher Siby Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Dr.Lakshmi R.Lakshman Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. Vs Thilakan.N

Valli Ramanan Vs Government of India