The Kerala High Court has directed the Advisory Committee established under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act to convene its first meeting within two weeks, pointing out that it is “unfortunate” that the court is compelled to issue such direction. The Committee, constituted by notification in August 2024 with a two-year tenure, had not met even once by mid-2025, despite the Court having issued prior orders expecting action.
The matter before the Court arises from a writ petition raising multiple concerns about organ donation, allocation, and transparency in Kerala. The petitioner sought directions for compliance with previous judgments and orders, including issuance of press releases seeking altruistic donors in print and electronic media, operationalization of a web portal or online registry for prospective donors, and greater oversight of the Kerala State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (K-SOTTO). The petitioner argued that although more than 30,000 transplantations purportedly occur in the State, none appear to be routed through the K-SOTTO platform, and that despite prior High Court directions, the organization had failed to establish a donor registry website.
During the proceedings, the Court expressed that although the petitioner was not a domain expert, the significance and sensitivity of organ transplantation issues required specialized attention. The Court remarked that the advisory body was the appropriate forum to address the various competing interests—preventing commercialization, protecting donor rights, ensuring equitable allocation—and that expert deliberation was necessary rather than issuing piecemeal judicial directions.
The Court observed that no records had been placed on record showing that the Advisory Committee had ever held a meeting, despite orders in July and August 2025 calling for such. It noted the irony of constituting a committee for a two-year term that failed to meet even halfway through its term, which undermines the very purpose of its creation. The judges further remarked that in a State with evident issues in transplantation systems and donor availability, there was no justification for the Committee’s inaction.
Given the lack of responsiveness, the Court directed that the Advisory Committee must meet jointly within two weeks and consider all issues raised in the petition, including establishing a web registry, registry transparency, donor-recipient matching, commercial exploitation risks, and public outreach through press statements. The Court also directed that a preliminary report be submitted to the State Government within four weeks. In addition, the Court ordered that a copy of the petition be placed before the Committee for study and formal deliberation.
The directions reflect the Court’s position that specialist bodies created under statute must actively function and that judicial prompting should ideally be unnecessary. The High Court has fixed further hearings, and the Committee is expected to commence its functioning without delay.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.