Organ transplantation | Donor’s consent must be accepted at face value, says Madras High Court

Madras High Court ruling shifts burden of proof in organ donation, emphasizing altruistic intent and timely decisions for saving lives.

In a verdict that would have major implications for organ transplantation, the Madras High Court on Thursday held that the consent given by a donor, even if he/she is not related to the recipient, must be accepted by the authorisation committee at its face value unless there is evidence to prove money or money’s worth having changed hands.

Shifting the burden of proof from the donor/recipient to the authorisation committee, Justice G.R. Swaminathan wrote that the donor and the recipient “can only assert that there is no commercial dealing. They cannot be called upon to prove the negative... Too much of burden cannot be laid on their shoulders.”

In case of doubt, the authorisation committee could seek explanation from the applicants and if necessary, a verification could also be carried out through the government officials. “Unless there is definite material to establish financial dealings, permission must not be withheld or rejected,” the judge said.

If the donor states that it was only out of love and affection that he/she was making the organ donation, such an averment should not be doubted at all in the absence of any credible reason, the court said and observed that the government must also come out with definite guidelines in this regard.

“Otherwise, the issue will be left to the arbitrary discretion of the authorisation committee. If the recipient is well placed and connected, the decision of the committee will swing in his favour. If the recipient is not all that influential, permission can be rejected by passing a template order,” the judge said.

The Parliament, by enacting the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act of 1994, never intended to rule out donation by non near relatives. Therefore, its intent must not be frustrated by adopting a rigid approach and taking a cynical view that a non near relative would not donate out of altruistic considerations, he said.

“All religions proclaim that love and charity are the highest virtues. Hundreds and thousands have given up their lives for larger and impersonal causes. It is not necessary that selfish consideration should underlie all human endeavour. Certain statements can be taken at their face value,” the judge added.