The Kerala High Court has clarified that the requirement of a Certificate of Altruism under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, is not automatic or mandatory in every case of organ donation. The Court emphasized that such certification must be triggered only upon reasonable suspicion of commercial transplantation, not as a routine procedural hurdle.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nooshad K., seeks permission to donate a kidney to his friend, Mohammed Dilshan, who suffers from end-stage renal disease. The petitioner submitted all required documentation to the 2nd respondent, Convener of the Local Committee of Organ Transplantation at Lakeshore Hospital, including joint affidavits, consent forms, identification certificates, and medical reports. However, the Local Committee refused to forward the application to the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) unless the petitioner first obtained a Certificate of Altruism from the police authority, despite no evidence suggesting commercial intent or familial remoteness.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and the recipient are not blood relatives but have known each other for over a decade
- The petitioner submitted Exhibit P1 to P11, including affidavits sworn on 25.05.2026, medical certificates dated 25.06.2026 and 03.06.2026, and Form 3 application dated 25.05.2026
- The hospital’s medical team, including Dr. Abi Abraham M, confirmed the medical suitability and non-commercial nature of the donation
- The petitioner’s wife, Ramlath K.K., and brother, Abdul Gafoor K., also submitted consent affidavits on 25.05.2026
- The 3rd respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Konotty, was approached via letter dated 02.06.2026 but did not respond
- The petitioner was denied procedural progression solely due to the absence of a Certificate of Altruism
Procedural History
- 25.05.2026: Petitioner and recipient submitted joint affidavits, consent forms, and Form 3 application to Lakeshore Hospital
- 02.06.2026: Hospital wrote to the 3rd respondent requesting clarification on Certificate of Altruism requirement
- 25.06.2026: Hospital issued medical certificate confirming donor-recipient relationship and medical fitness
- 01.07.2026: Petitioner filed this writ petition after being blocked from submitting documents to DLAC
- 02.07.2026: Court heard arguments and noted precedent in Soubiya v. District Level Authorisation Committee
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the Certificate of Altruism is a safeguard against commercial transplantation, not a blanket requirement. He submitted comprehensive documentation proving genuine altruism, including long-standing personal relationship, non-monetary intent, and third-party affidavits. Relied on Soubiya to show that absence of blood relation does not trigger mandatory police certification.
Respondents: Did not contest the factual basis but maintained that the Certificate of Altruism is a statutory precondition under Rule 12(1) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, and must be obtained before any application is forwarded.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought directions to:
- Allow submission of documents to the Local Committee without the Certificate of Altruism
- Direct the Local Committee to forward the application to the DLAC
- Mandate the DLAC to determine whether the Certificate is required in this case
- Direct the police authority to issue the Certificate promptly if required
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Certificate of Altruism under Rule 12(1) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, must be obtained as a mandatory pre-condition in every non-blood-relative organ donation, or whether its requirement is triggered only upon reasonable suspicion of commercial transplantation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Soubiya v. District Level Authorisation Committee (2023 (6) KHC 293), where this Court held that the Certificate of Altruism is not an automatic requirement but a procedural safeguard to be invoked only when the Authorization Committee has grounds to suspect commercial intent. He argued that the absence of financial transaction, presence of long-term personal relationship, and multiple corroborative affidavits negated any suspicion. He contended that requiring the Certificate in every case violates the spirit of the Act, which aims to facilitate genuine donations.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader conceded that the facts of this case closely mirrored Soubiya and did not contest the petitioner’s claim of altruism. He acknowledged that the police certificate should not be imposed as a blanket condition but maintained that the procedural framework requires strict adherence unless explicitly exempted by judicial precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and its Rules are designed to prevent commercial exploitation while promoting altruistic donation. The requirement of a Certificate of Altruism under Rule 12(1) is not an end in itself but a mechanism to verify the absence of monetary consideration. The Court reiterated its holding in Soubiya: "The Certificate of Altruism is not a statutory precondition for filing an application; it is a tool for verification, to be invoked only when the Authorization Committee has reason to doubt the genuineness of the relationship."
"The Act does not contemplate a mechanical, one-size-fits-all approach to donor verification. Where the documentation establishes a credible, non-commercial relationship, the Certificate of Altruism cannot be used as a procedural barrier to deny access to the authorization process."
The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted multiple affidavits, medical certifications, and a letter from a Member of Parliament attesting to the legitimacy of the relationship. The Local Committee had no basis to suspect commercial intent. Therefore, requiring the Certificate at this stage would amount to imposing an unlawful condition not contemplated by the statute.
The Court further held that the DLAC, as the competent authority, must be the first to assess whether the Certificate is necessary. The burden of raising suspicion lies with the DLAC, not the donor.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The Court directs:
- The petitioner may submit all documents to the 2nd respondent without the Certificate of Altruism within two weeks
- The 2nd respondent shall forward the application to the 1st respondent (DLAC) within one week of receiving this judgment
- The DLAC shall notify the petitioner within one week of receipt whether the Certificate of Altruism is required
- If required, the petitioner shall obtain it within two weeks, and the police authority shall issue it within two weeks of application
- The DLAC shall decide the application within one month of receiving the Certificate, or within one month of receipt of the application if no Certificate is required
- Costs of Rs. 10,000 shall be paid by the 1st respondent to the petitioner
What This Means For Similar Cases
Certificate of Altruism Is Not a Default Requirement
- Practitioners must now argue that the Certificate is only mandatory when the DLAC raises specific, documented suspicion of commercial intent
- Blanket denial of application due to absence of Certificate is unlawful and subject to writ relief
- Documentation proving long-standing personal relationship, non-monetary intent, and third-party attestations can preempt the need for police certification
Authorization Committees Must Justify Suspicion
- DLACs cannot rely on procedural formality to delay or deny applications
- Any request for a Certificate must be accompanied by written reasons indicating specific grounds for suspicion
- Failure to provide reasons renders the request ultra vires and subject to judicial review
Procedural Timelines Are Enforceable
- The Court’s fixed timelines for each step (two weeks for police, one month for DLAC) create binding deadlines
- Delays beyond these periods may attract contempt proceedings
- Legal representatives should file compliance applications if timelines are breached
