The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the human need for an organ transplant is a crucial part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a significant observation, the Court questioned the current criteria for registration of patients awaiting organ transplants and suggested the establishment of a separate list for those who might imminently need a transplant.
A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Harshad Bhoite, a resident of Pune. Bhoite, suffering from Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Stage-V due to polycystic kidney disease, is not yet on dialysis but will soon require a kidney transplant. Despite his condition, the Zonal Transplant Coordination Centre at Pune refused to register him for a cadaveric kidney transplant.
The denial was based on clause 3 of the “Allocation Criteria for Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant Guidelines,” which mandates that only patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis for more than three months are eligible for registration.
"The concern of the petitioner is that the right to life also would include right to receive an organ transplant and for which he needs to be registered so that in the event dire urgency arises, and on medical certification he becomes entitled to receive a kidney," submitted Dr. Uday Warunjikar, appearing for the petitioner.
Warunjikar argued that waiting until the patient’s condition worsens before allowing registration is both unreasonable and unfair. He urged the Court to direct authorities to create a mechanism that accommodates patients who are not on dialysis but whose medical conditions indicate they will imminently need a transplant.
Agreeing with this view, the Court said,
The human need for an organ transplant is directly a facet of right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie, a situation cannot be countenanced that when for any patient there is a need of an organ transplant, which might not be immediate but is imminent, such situation would also be required to be paid attention by the respondents.
The Court emphasized that the 1994 Act—the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act—aims to regulate organ transplant procedures for therapeutic purposes and to prevent commercial exploitation. Any rules or guidelines made under the Act must be interpreted in a way that upholds the constitutional right to life.
"It would be appropriate for the respondents to consider whether a separate registration facility could be provided to those patients, who in future would imminently require an organ transplant," the Court opined, adding that this would reduce delays and difficulties faced by such patients.
The Bench has asked the State and other respondents to consider this suggestion seriously and file their responses. The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 17, 2025.
