Courts and Organ Donation Laws in India

In a recent case of Hamza M. (2026 CaseBase(KER) 41), the Kerala High Court reflected upon the role of Courts in upholding organ donation laws in India. The matter pertained to a patient in urgent need for kidney transplant, and no close relatives proved to be a suitable match. A non-relative offered his kidney. However, the District Level Authorization Committee and police verification report indicated suspicion of financial consideration. The Court’s interference in the absence of specific finding paved the way for kidney donation motivated by altruism.

The case serves as a powerful glimpse of how Courts can keep aside the procedural sham while upholding the essence of organ donation when needed. This article seeks to assess judicial review in organ transplantation law.

Organ Donation Laws in India

In India, organ donation and transplantation is governed by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA). The provisions for organ transplantation allow living as well as deceased (cadaveric) donations of human organs. They further aim at prohibiting commercial transactions under the garb of organ transplantation. The basic legal requisites under the THOTA Act are as follows:

A near-relative (biological relation) needs permission of the doctor in-charge of the transplant centre;
A non-related donor needs permission of a State Authorization Committee;
A person can voluntarily become a donor only if he/she has attained the age of majority;
The organ donation laws in India particularly restrict removal of any organs or tissues from the body of a minor before his/her death. There are exceptional cases (such as brain-stem death) where the parents of a minor may consent to removal of organs of a minor;
The THOTA Act also restricts organ donation by a mentally challenged person;
Based on procedural requirements, there are several forms under the organ donation law of 1994. These include forms for consent, application for approval of transplantation, registration of hospital, certificate by authorization committee, certification of relationship with donor, etc.
The law lays out punishment for removal of human organ without authority, organ trade, illegal dealings in human tissues, and contravention of any of the provisions.

Commercial Transactions of Organs

India’s organ transplantation law prohibits organ trade. Such practices exploit vulnerable populations, undermine altruistic donation, and violate human rights and dignity. Anyone involved in the commercialization of human organs is punishable with minimum imprisonment of 5 years, which may extend to 10 years. The punishment also includes minimum fine of 20 lakh rupees, which may extend to Rs 1 crore.

Judicial Review in Transplant Cases

Organ transplantation is a process expected to be conducted within the hospital premises. However, to avoid any kind of exploitation, Organ donation laws were enforced in India. Where there is a deviation from the requirements of THOTA Act, or commission of an offence under the Act, the Indian Legal system comes into play. Courts in turn ensure that the objective of regulating removal, storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues for therapeutic purposes, and prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and tissues, is duly upheld.

Judicial review in transplant cases holds a delicate yet vital position within India’s constitutional framework. While the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 vests Authorization Committees with the power to scrutinize non-near relative donations, their decisions are subject to review under Articles 226 and 32. This is to ensure that discretion is exercised fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with organ transplantation law. Courts do not ordinarily substitute their own satisfaction for that of the expert body. They intervene where rejections are based on mere suspicion, irrelevant considerations, absence of evidence, or failure to provide reasoned orders. Organ transplant approvals often involve life-saving medical urgency, and judicial review in such cases yearns for constitutional sensitivity, particularly under Article 21. The judiciary acts as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrariness, delay, and disproportionate administrative action in matters directly affecting people’s right to life.

Constitutional Importance of THOTA

The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, though having statutory roots, it squarely intersects with some fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The first and foremost hint comes through the right to life and health under Article 21. The Higher Courts have further expanded the scope of life, enveloping the right to bodily autonomy as well as human dignity.

The organ donation laws in India ensure equal protection for the donor, while securing the life of person in need of transplant. THOTA thus reflects a constitutional balance: it protects vulnerable individuals from exploitation while enabling patients to exercise their right to survive through lawful transplantation.

Inference

Human life is precious, and the organ transplantation laws ensure there is no commercialization of organs. It is further designed to prevent exploitation without preventing compassion. In other words, by prohibiting commercial dealings in organs, the 1994 Act affirms that the human body cannot be reduced to a market commodity. Courts in India must balance out the two objectives of the organ donation laws so that no human is harmed for want of money, and no human life suffers in health crisis awaiting organ transplant, blocked in administrative procedures.