Title: Rajveer Singh Vs. Union of India
Citation: WRIT PETITION (C) Diary No.45541/2023
Decided on: 09.11.2023
Coram: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Introduction
The Supreme Court has granted permission for a liver donation from a person to his 3-year-old cousin suffering from a chronic liver disease. The court clarified that this specific order should not be considered a precedent for other cases. The intervention occurred after the authorization committee, under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, rejected approval for the liver donation, citing the prohibition outlined in Section 9.
Facts of the case
The issue arose due to the fact that the patient and his parents hold Overseas Citizens of India status, and according to Sub-Section 1A of Section 9 of the Act, prior approval from the Authorization Committee is required when either the donor or the recipient is a foreign national. In response to these circumstances, a writ petition was filed seeking directions to permit the liver transplant by the donor, who is also the second petitioner, in order to save the life of the child (first petitioner) and protect his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court had previously granted permission on November 01, allowing the petitioners to submit the necessary application to the Authorization Committee, with a request for prompt consideration. However, on the following day, the hospital’s counsel informed the Bench that the donor had not yet undergone counseling, leading to an adjournment of the matter.
Court’s observation and analysis
Section 9 of the Act allows only a “near relative” to donate organs, and the Act defines a “near relative” as a “spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, or granddaughter.” Notably, a “cousin” is not included in this definition. After reviewing the Authorization Committee’s report, the Court observed that a detailed examination had taken place regarding two aspects: the relationship between the first petitioner and the second petitioner, and the latter’s intention to be a donor.
The petitioner had argued that the parents of the petitioners were unfit to donate. The mother was undergoing pregnancy treatment, and the father’s blood group did not match. Although the report did not specify reasons for the parents not donating the liver, the Court exempted them since there was an appropriate donor available.
The Court further noted that, even though specific reasons were not provided, considering the mother’s sentiment and the presence of a suitable donor who is a relative, the Court is satisfied with the bona fides of the case. In these exceptional circumstances, where the choice is between saving the life of a three-year-old child (the first petitioner) and strict adherence to legal requirements, the Court decided to prioritize the child’s life.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Amrita Rout
