Gujarat Govt’s Policy Giving Preference To Domiciled Residents In Cadaveric Organ Transplant Unconstitutional: High Court

Gujarat Govt’s Policy Giving Preference To Domiciled Residents In Cadaveric Organ Transplant Unconstitutional: High Court

Case: Vidya Ramesh Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat

Coram: Justice Biren Vaishnav

Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 18056 of 2022

Court Observation: “While interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court has held that the ‘Right to Health’ is an integral part of the ‘Right to Life’ and the State has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. Denial of medical treatment to the petitioners who are not domiciles of Gujarat is illegal and unconstitutional.”

“Reading the Act of 1994 and the Rules thereunder indicate that the purpose of the Act is to stem commercialization in organ trade and therefore a mechanism to monitor absence of commercial consideration between recipient and donor are sought to be controlled. For the purposes of the Act, the powers to curb such transactions cannot be extended to formulate executive instructions giving only a domicile of a State to be able to register himself or herself for organ donation, as a recipient as there is no nexus sought to be achieved. When the purpose of the Act and the Rules is as to prevent commercial dealings in human organs and tissues as well as to regulate transplantation of human organs for therapeutic use, the purpose of the Act and the Rules was never to restraint medical treatment to the domicile of a State.”

Previous Posts

No Intention To Harm Reputation: Calcutta High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Reporter & Editor Of A Bengali Daily

Family Court Can Restore Application U/S 125 CrPC After Its Dismissal For Default: Orissa High Court

Income Tax Act does not impose any limitation for filing an application for condonation of delay: Kerala High Court

Child Born From Second Wife Of A Deceased Employee Eligible For Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

‘Discretion’ Has No Place In Contractual Matters Unless It Is Expressely Incorporated In Contract: Supreme Court

S.134 Evidence Act | Testimony Of Single Eyewitness Can Form Basis For Conviction Provided It Is Of Sterling Quality: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Doctrine Of Group Of Companies, Can’t Implead Third Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Keywords

Gujarat Govt’s Policy