Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.09 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Transplantation Of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Kuldeep Singh & Another vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 31 March, 2005
In Kuldeep Singh v. State of T.N., [(2005)
11 SCC 122], the Honourable Supreme Court, while
interpreting sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, has
held that the object of the statute is to prevent commercial
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 12
2025:KER:19085
dealings in human organs. If the donor is not a near
relative of the recipient, then the Authorisation Committee
has to be satisfied that the real purpose of the donation is
due to the affection or attachment or for any other special
reason. The Authorisation Committee would be better
positioned to ascertain the authorisation's true intent and
purpose by lifting the veil of projected affection or
attachment and the so-called special reasons and by
focusing on the true intent. The burden is on the
applicants to establish the real intent by placing relevant
materials for consideration before the Authorisation
Committee. Whether there is affection, attachment, or
special reason is within the special knowledge of the
applicants, and a heavy burden is cast on them.
M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010
20. On an overall consideration of the facts,
the materials on record and the law laid down by this
Court, and taking into account the fact that this Court
had directed the 4th respondent to re-consider the
joint application filed by the petitioners, after adverting
to Ext.P1 certificate and the affidavit filed by the
ACP, but the 4th respondent has reiterated its earlier
stand, I am not inclined to again remand the matter to
the 4th respondent, since I am satisfied that the donation is
purely out of altruism. We need to have an optimistic
perspective that non-near relatives exist, who are
genuinely willing to sacrifice their organs or tissues for
altruistic consideration.
Association Of Medical Super ... vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2019
25. The Honourable Supreme Court in Association
of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents
v. Union of India [(2019) 8 SCC 607] has held that
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 18
2025:KER:19085
the right to health is fundamental to the right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to
life extends beyond mere survival to include living with
dignity, encompassing necessities like nutrition, clothing,
shelter, and the freedom to express, move, and interact.
Every act that undermines human dignity amounts to a
partial deprivation of the right to life. Such restrictions
must align with a reasonable, fair, and just legal
procedure that upholds other fundamental rights. To
truly live is to live with dignity.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986
In Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another V. K.S.
Jagannathan & Another [(1986)2 SCC 679)], the
Honourable Supreme Court has declared that to prevent
injustice, the court may itself pass an order or give
directions which the Government or public authority
should have passed or exercised in its discretion at its
level.
A. Ismail Kunju vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2015
19. Recently a Bench of this Court in Ismail
Kunju vs. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KHC 547] has
categorically held that the authorities are obliged to give
WP(C) NO. 7866 OF 2025 14
2025:KER:19085
reasons in the orders passed under the Act. It is apposite
to refer to the legal principles in the decision, which reads
as follows: