Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.41 seconds)Article 252 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kuldeep Singh & Another vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 31 March, 2005
11. At this juncture, it will be relevant to take note of the
judgment in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
[(2005) 11 SCC 122] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
Authorisation Committee is required to satisfy that the real purpose of
the donor authorising removal of the organ is by reason of affection or
attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reason. The
37/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:20 pm )
WP.No.31813 of 2025
term "special reason", by no stretch of imagination, encompasses
commercial elements. As rightly held by this Court in the case of
Dr.J.Kaja Moinudeen, Rule 14 of the Rules embodies the principle
laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep
Singh.
Section 3 in The Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994
Section 9 in The Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Sadhna Bhardwaj vs The Department Of Health & Family ... on 1 September, 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:20 pm )
WP.No.31813 of 2025
BEELA RAJESH,
Secretary to Government.'
7.2 The 2014 Rules were notified in the
State of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. Ms. No. 314, Health
and Family Welfare (Z1), 28th August 2020, and
ever since 2014 Rules hold the field in this State. It
has become necessary to underscore this statutory
evolution essentially because certain authorities in
Sadhna Bhardwaj Vs The Department of Health &
Family Welfare [W.P.(C) No.6105/2011 dated
01.09.2011] referred to supra, M.Anoop Vs State
of Tamil Nadu and Others [W.P.No.18657 of 2009
dated 15.09.2009] and Smt.Kamal Devi Vs The
Director of Medical Education and Chairman,
Authorization Committee for Organ
Transplantation, Hyderabad and Another [W.P.No.
5618 of 2019 dated 30.03.2009], are cited at the
Bar, which are pronouncements when Rule 6~B of
2008 Rule was in vogue, which to repeat has since
been superseded by the 2014 Rules.