KULDEEP SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS .

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 31-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KULDEEP SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
.. 
ST A TE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS . 
MARCH 31, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994: 
-
Section 9(3)-Jssuance of No-Objection Certificate for transplantation C 
·of human organ into the body of recipient not being near relative-Competent 
authority-Held: Authorisation Committee of the State to which donor and 
recipient belong to is the competent authority to issue the No-Objection 
Certificate, since it is in a better position to ascertain that the removal of 
organ is not for commercial consideration but is out of affection or attachment 
towards the recipient-Directions issued to the Authorisation Committees of D 
various States to frame rules requiring the donor and the recipient to give 
details of their financial positions and vocations. 
Object and purpose of the Act-Discussed. 
Question arising for consideration in the present Writ Petition is E 
whether in case of transplantation of human organ into a body of recipient 
not being a near relative, the Competent Authority to issue the 'No-
Objection' Certificate is the Authorisation Committee of the State to Fhich 
the donor and recipient of the organ belong to or the Authorisation 
Committee of the State in which transplantation has to take place. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Authorisation Committee of the State to which donor 
and the recipient belong is the Competent Authority to issue the 'No-
F 
Objection' Certificate. [74-DI 
G 
2.1. The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 was 
promulgated to provide for the regulation of removal, storage and 
transplantation of human organs for therapeutic purposes and for the 
prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and or matters 
67 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A connected therewith or incidental thereto. In case the donor is not a 'near 
relative', the requirement is that he must establish that removal of the 
organ was being authorized for transplantation into the body of the 
recipient because of affection or attachment or for any special reasons to 
make donation of his organ. 170-C, 73-E) 
B 
2.2. The Authorisation Committees of the State to which the donor 
and the donee belong have to take the exercise to find out whether 
approval is to be accorded. Such Committee shall be in a better position 
to ascertain the true intent and the purpose for the authorization to remove 
the organ and whether any commercial element is involved or not. The 
C burden is on the applicants to establish the real intent by placing relevant 
materials for consideration of the Authorisation Committee. Whether there 
exists any affection or attachment or special reason is within the special 
knowledge of the applicants, and a heavy burden lies on them to establish 
it. It is always open to the Authorisation Committee considering the 
application to seek information/materials from Authorization Committees' 
D of other States/State Governments as the case may be for effective decision 
in the matter. In case any State is not covered by the op.eration of the Act 
or the Rules, the operative executive instructions/Government orders will 
hold the field. As the object is to find out their true intent behind the 
donor's willingness to donate the organ, it would not be in line with the 
E legislative intent to require the Authorisation Committee of the State where 
the recipient is undergoing medical treatment to decide the issue whether 
approval is to be accorded. (73-G-H; 74-A-DJ 
3. Since the object of th'e Statute is to ~ule out commercial dealings, 
it would be desirable to require the donor and recipient to give details of 
F their financial positions and vocations. It would be appropriate for the 
Legislature to accordingly amend the Rules. Until Legislative steps are 
taken, all Authorisation committees shall, in terms of this judgment require 
the applicants to furnish their income particulars for the previous three 
financial years and the vocations. (74-F-H). 
G 
H 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
2005. 
Writ Petition (C) No. 156 of 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Rajiv Kataria, Ms. Debjani Dass. Purkayastha and Ajay Thakur for the 
Pecitioner. 
..
-
KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [PASAYAT, J.] 
69 
Subramoniun Prasad for State of Tamil Nadu. 
Atul Nanda, Addi. Advocate General for State of Punjab and Arun K. 
Sinha for State of Punjab. 
The Judgment of the Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.