Kerala High Court
Hamza M vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
2026:KER:11676
WP(C) No.2658/2026
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2658 OF 2026
PETITIONERS:
1 HAMZA M.,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, MOOCHITHODI HOUSE, OORAKAM, VENGARA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676519
2 SHAJI M.K.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. K.A.KUMARAN, MEKKARAVELI LAKSHAMVEEDU, PALLIPPURAM
P.O., PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688541
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SMT.NASHWA P. K.
SHRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH
SMT.ANUPAMA R. NAIR
SMT.THASNEEM A.P.
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:11676
WP(C) No.2658/2026
..2..
3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE FOR
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680596
BY SRI.SHAMEER P.M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
06.02.2026, THE COURT ON 10.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11676
WP(C) No.2658/2026
..3..
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a person in need of kidney transplantation. Since the kidneys of his close relatives were found unsuitable for transplantation, the second petitioner expressed his willingness to donate his kidney to the first petitioner.
2. The application submitted by the petitioners was initially rejected by the third respondent as per Ext.P7 order. The said order was challenged in appeal; however, the appellate authority also rejected the request as per Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed. The petitioners then preferred an appeal; and as per Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court set aside Exts.P7 and P10, and directed the third respondent to reconsider the matter. Upon reconsideration, the third respondent again rejected the request as per Ext.P13 order. The petitioners once again approached this Court challenging Ext.P13, and by Ext.P16 judgment, this Court directed the third respondent to reconsider the matter. Pursuant to Ext.P16, the third respondent passed Ext.P18 order rejecting the request again. The matter was again brought before this Court, and by Ext.P20 judgment, the third respondent was directed to reconsider the matter afresh and 2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..4..
to assign satisfactory reasons. Finally, the third respondent passed Ext.P21 impugned order rejecting the application. It is challenging Ext.P21 that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. To find a donor for kidney transplantation if close relatives are unavailable, is a cumbersome task. The rules do not prohibit kidney transplantation from donors other than close relatives. As per the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, transplantation from a donor, who is not a near relative, is permissible only if the donor is able to establish that the donation is motivated by altruism towards the recipient or that there exists a strong and genuine link between them. A large number of patients require organ transplantation to save their lives; however, only a few are fortunate enough to find a matching donor. In the present case, the first petitioner is in urgent need of kidney transplantation and is stated to be in a medical emergency. Despite several rounds of litigation, and notwithstanding repeated directions from this Court to pass a reasoned order, the third respondent rejected the request of the petitioners. From Ext.P21, it is seen that the rejection was on the ground that the statements given by the donor, his wife, and the recipient's wife were 2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..5..
found to be unreliable, and that the proposed donation was not motivated by altruism, but allegedly based on commercial transaction. If a commercial transaction is established, the donation would clearly be impermissible under the Act. In order to prove the link, though several questions were put forward to the donor, the recipient and their family members, the committee could not get a clear answer from them. There may be some variations in the reply or answers given by the family members or the donor or the recipient. It is very difficult to prove love and affection towards a person.
5. For proving commercial transactions, the third respondent relied on Ext.P19 police verification report. Some of the findings in Ext.P19 police verification report reads as follows:
"....ചേർത്തല പോലീസ ് സ്റ്റേഷൻ SCPO-6083 വിനു.കെ.പി നിർദ്ദേശാനുസരണം അന്വേഷണം നടത്തി ഹാജരാക്കിയ റിപ്പോർട്ട് പരിശോധിച്ചതിൽ ചേന്നം പള്ളിപ്പുറം പഞ്ചായത്ത ് 4-ാം വാർഡിൽ പള്ളിപ്പുറം.പി.ഒ-യിൽ മേക്കരവെളി വീട്ടിൽ കുമാരൻ മകൻ 43 വയസ്സുള്ള ഷാജി എന്നയാൾ മലപ്പുറം വേങ്ങര സ്വദേശിയായ ഹംസ എ. എന്നയാൾക്ക ് വൃക്ക സംബന്ധമായ അസുഖത്തെ തുടർന്ന ് തൃശൂർ മെഡിക്കൽ കോളേജ് ആശുപത്രിയിലെ ചികിൽസയിലാണെന്നും ടിയാളുടെ മലപ്പുറം വേങ്ങരയിലെ സ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ ജോലിക്കാരനായിരുന്നു എന്ന് പറയപ്പെടുന്ന ചേന്നം പള്ളിപ്പുറം പഞ്ചായത്ത ് 4-ാം വാർഡിൽ പള്ളിപ്പുറം.പി.ഒ-യിൽ മേക്കരവെളി വീട്ടിൽ കുമാരൻ മകൻ 43 വയസ്സുള്ള ഷാജി എന്നയാൾ ടി വിവരം അറിഞ്ഞതിനെ തുടർന്ന ് സ്വമേധയാ തന്നെ വൃക്ക ദാനത്തിന് തയ്യാറാവുകയും അംഗീകരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുമാമെന്നാണ ് മൊഴികളിൽ പറയുന്നത്. ആയത ് ഭാര്യയും അംഗീകരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണെന്നാണ് മൊഴികളിൽ പറയുന്നത്.
തുടർന്ന ് ദാതാവിന്റെ പരിസരവാസികളോടും മറ്റും ചോദിച്ചതിൽ നിന്നും ടിയാന ് സാമ്പത്തിക ബാധ്യതകൾ ഉണ്ടെന്നും അതിനെ തുടർന്ന ് പ്രതിഫലം വാങ്ങിയാണ് വൃക്ക ദാനത്തിന് തയ്യാറെടുക്കുന്നതെന്നാണ് സംശയിക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്. കൂടാതെ സ്വീകർത്താവായി പറയപ്പെടുന്നയാൾ ദാതാവുമായി അടുത്ത ബന്ധമുള്ള വ്യക്തിയല്ല. ടിയാളുടെ മലപ്പുറം വേങ്ങരയിലെ സ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ 2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..6..
ജോലിക്കാരനായിരുന്നു എന്ന ് പറയുന്ന കാര്യം പരിസരവാസികളോട് ചോദിച്ചതിൽ കളവാണെന്ന് ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ടു. മാത്രമല്ല ഹംസയെ പരിചയമുണ്ടെന്ന് ദാതാവ് പറയുന്ന വിവരങ്ങൾ വിശ്വസനീയവുമല്ല.
അന്വേഷണത്തിൽ ടി ദാതാവിനെതിരേ ചേർത്തല പോലീസ് സ്റ്റേഷനിൽ നിലവിൽ കേസുകൾ ഒന്നും തന്നെയില്ലാ എങ്കിലും ടി അവയവദാനത്തിന് പ്രതിഫലം കൈപ്പറ്റുവാൻ സാധ്യതയുണ്ട ് എന്നാണ് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിരിക്കുന്നത്.
ഇത ് സംബന്ധിച്ച് അന്വേഷണം നടത്തിയതിൽ വൃക്ക ദാതാവായ ഷാജിക്കെതിരായി നിലവിൽ ചേർത്തല പോലീസ് സ്റ്റേഷനിൽ കേസുകൾ ഒന്നും തന്നെ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല എങ്കിലും ടി അവയവദാനത്തിന ് പ്രതിഫലം കൈപ്പറ്റുവാൻ സാധ്യതയുണ്ട് എന്നുള്ള വിവരത്തിന് SCPO-6083 വിനു.കെ.പി റിപ്പോർട്ട ് ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളതിനാൽ ടിയാന് വെരിഫിക്കേഷൻ സർട്ടിഫിക്കറ്റ് അനുവദിക്കരുതെന്നുള്ള വിവരം ബോധിപ്പിച്ചുകൊള്ളുന്നു. ദാതാവായ ഷാജി, ടിയാളുടെ ഭാര്യ സരിത എന്നിവരെ കണ്ടു ചോദിച്ച ് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയ മൊഴിയും, SCPO-6083 വിനു.കെ.പി ഹാജരാക്കിയ റിപ്പോർട്ടും ഇതൊന്നിച്ച് ചേർത്തിട്ടുള്ളതാകുന്നു."
It is revealed from Ext.P19 police verification report that though they have interacted with the donor and his family members, no questions were asked directly to them regarding financial liabilities, if any, of the second petitioner/donor. Upon conducting an enquiry among the neighbours of the donor's family, the police opined that the proposed donation might involve a commercial transaction. Even then, there is no specific finding that there is a commercial transaction involved in the proposed kidney donation. The police have also found that there may be a chance for financial consideration in donating the kidney. Admittedly, there is no specific finding in Ext.P19 police verification report that any commercial transaction is involved in the proposed kidney donation. It is also seen that the third respondent, while considering the application, did not find that the financial status of the first petitioner/recipient was 2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..7..
good enough in order to doubt any commercial transaction in the case.
6. Since the issue is one which has a direct impact on a life of a person, this Court found it necessary to interact with the second petitioner/donor; and pursuant to the direction of this Court on 22.01.2026, the second petitioner/donor appeared before this Court on 30.01.2026; and confirmed that he had worked with the first petitioner for quite a long time; and he had acquaintance with him; and it is only out of love and affection, and considering the present medical condition of the first petitioner, that he has come forward to donate one of his kidneys and there is no commercial transaction involved in this case. He appeared to be very strong in his decision. He also submitted that he is taking care of the family; and his wife is also having a small job with which they are living happily. When a specific question was put to the second petitioner regarding the risk in donating one kidney, he replied that a person can even live with one kidney.
7. Other than Ext.P19 police verification report, the authority has not found anything to come to the conclusion that there is financial transaction involved in the case. The statute does not prohibit kidney transplantation. It only precludes commercial dealings in human organs. I find no reason to infer that any financial dealing is involved in the transaction; on the contrary, the donation appears to be purely 2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..8..
motivated by altruism. Since the concern raised by the third respondent is based merely on suspicion, it cannot constitute a valid ground for declining the approval sought. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P21 rejection order passed by the third respondent is quashed. The third respondent is directed to grant permission to the petitioners for transplantation, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-
2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..9..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2658 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLOSE RELATIVES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF THE DONOR AND HIS WIFE DATED 28.11.2024 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PRESIDENT OF OORAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.12.2024 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 04.12.2024 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 3 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 15.12.2024 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 11 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 15.12.2024 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2025 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2025 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.7099/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27.02.2025 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1176/2025/H&FWD ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.04.2025 Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.18316/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11.06.2025 Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1455/2025 DATED 19.06.2025 Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.09.2025 Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PATIENT DATED 13.09.2025 Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE WIFE OF THE PATIENT, BUSHARA DATED 13.09.2025 Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.33999/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 06.10.2025 2026:KER:11676 WP(C) No.2658/2026 ..10..
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2025 Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2025 Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO IN WP(C) NO.42660/2025 FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS DATED 22.11.2025 Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.42660/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11.12.2025 Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2026