Introduction:

In ABC and the Chairperson, Hospital Based Authorization Committee & Anr., Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 427, the Karnataka High Court, through Justice Suraj Govindaraj, dealt with an uncommon yet deeply human issue concerning voluntary organ donation. The petitioner, a 58-year-old medical doctor, approached the High Court after her request to donate one of her kidneys purely as an altruistic donor, without any monetary or other consideration, was rejected by the Hospital Based Authorization Committee. The petitioner made it clear that she had no intention of choosing the recipient herself and was willing to donate her kidney to any deserving person identified by the hospital, subject to medical compatibility and statutory safeguards. She further explained that due to a family history of diabetes, which could potentially affect her kidneys at a later stage, she wished to donate while she was medically fit. The refusal of the Committee, according to her, was based on an unfounded apprehension of possible commercial transactions, compelling her to seek constitutional relief from the High Court.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sripada Venkata Joga Rao, argued that the rejection of her application was arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the very spirit of the law governing organ transplantation. It was submitted that she was donating of her own free will, without coercion, inducement, or expectation of compensation, and that she was fully aware of the medical, ethical, and legal consequences of kidney donation, being a doctor herself. The petitioner emphasised that she was not insisting on any specific donee and was leaving the identification entirely to the hospital and statutory authorities, thereby eliminating any scope for commercial exploitation. She also highlighted that denying her request amounted to an infringement of her personal autonomy and dignity, particularly when the law itself recognises altruistic donations under strict safeguards. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Advocate H. Mujtaba for Advocate K.R. Lakshmana Rao, defended the initial rejection by stating that the Committee acted cautiously to prevent illegal organ trade, which is a legitimate concern under transplant laws. The respondents submitted that prior verification, medical testing, and scrutiny were necessary to ensure that no hidden transaction existed and that the donor’s decision was genuine, voluntary, and medically safe. During the proceedings, the hospital informed the Court that five unrelated recipients had been identified as potential matches, though further medical tests were required to confirm compatibility and prevent rejection.

Judgment:

Allowing the petition, Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered a reasoned and empathetic judgment recognising the exceptional nature of the case. The Court observed that this was a rare instance where a person had approached the judiciary solely to donate an organ selflessly, without demanding anything in return. The Judge noted that the Committee appeared to have proceeded on a misconception that altruistic donation could conceal a commercial arrangement, despite there being no material to support such suspicion. Taking into account that the petitioner was a medical professional, of sound mind, major in age, and fully aware of the consequences of kidney donation, the Court held that her voluntary decision deserved respect and legal recognition. The Court directed the hospital to complete all necessary medical tests on the identified potential recipients and place the results before the Authorization Committee. The Committee was further directed to consider the matter afresh in light of the Court’s observations and pass appropriate orders within one week of receiving the medical reports. The Court clarified that all subsequent procedures must strictly follow statutory guidelines, thereby balancing humanitarian considerations with regulatory safeguards, and conclusively affirmed that altruistic organ donation, when genuine and transparent, must be facilitated rather than obstructed.