Factual Background 

In the case of Prasanna Laxmikant Joshi v State of Maharashtra Prasanna is an elderly person. His kidney was initially discovered to have end-stage renal illness in 2018. In order to determine their compatibility, Dinesh, Prasanna’s brother-in-law, volunteered to donate his kidney. It was discovered that Dinesh’s kidneys were healthy and a good match for Prasanna. A hospital in Pune advised Dinesh to go through with the required procedure. Affidavits signed by Prasanna, his wife Shreya and Dinesh attested to their relationship and the kidney transplant arrangement they were suggesting. To get the kidney transplantation approved, the petitioners submitted a combined application under the Act and its Rules. The Committee demanded in writing to the hospital that Shreya’s permission be sought as well. Both petitioners objected on the grounds that neither the Act nor the Rules call for “near relatives” to provide their consent, including spouses. The Committee, however, denied the joint application because Shreya and her child with Dinesh had not given their approval for the kidney donation. The petitioners appealed to the State government, but that administration also turned rejected their request. They, therefore approached the High Court for relief.

Court Decision Analysis 

The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act makes no provisions for a spouse withholding consent, even unreasonably or for extraneous reasons, according to a bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale, who overturned an order of the Maharashtra State government disallowing an organ donation on the grounds that the donor’s estranged wife refused to give her consent for husband’s voluntary kidney donation. Spousal consent was not a criterion that had to be met. 

The Court further stated that Prasanna’s unquestionably fundamental right to life under Article 21 could not be impeded by the marital problems between Shreya and Dinesh. It stated that both authorities disregarded the factor by prioritising an unidentified, unspoken, private concern. As a result, it was found that Shreya could not simply refuse to participate in the procedure and persuade the authorities that her consent was required.