JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. 1. The first petitioner is suffering from kidney disease and undergoing treatment at the Rajagiri Hospital, Aluva, Ernakulam. He was advised to undergo renal transplantation immediately. Allegedly, the kidneys of his close relatives are not suitable for transplantation and hence, he could not do renal transplantation to save his life. While so, the second petitioner has volunteered to donate her organ for conducting a transplantation surgery. Since they are not close relatives, they submitted a joint application under Section 9(5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”), which was rejected as per Ext.P11 by the District Level Organ Transplantation Authorization Committee (DLAC) under the Act, suspecting commercial dealing behind the human organ donation. Though the matter was taken in appeal, the appellate authority upheld the rejection by Ext.P14 order. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have come up before this Court. 2. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that the DLAC was convened on 12.09.2024 to evaluate the application for the proposed kidney transplantation; and during interaction, it was found that the statements regarding the relationship were contradictory. Hence, the DLAC requested the police authorities to enquire into the matter, pursuant to which Ext.R2(a) report dated 17.09.2024 was issued, concluding that the donor had agreed to organ donation not out of altruism, but for monetary gain. Accordingly, the DLAC rejected the application as per Ext.P11, finding that the application did not meet legal requirements for approval under the Act and since the mandatory condition of voluntariness and altruism has not been satisfied, the presence of financial inducement has been confirmed. The appeal against Ext.P11 order was considered by the State Level Technical Committee (for short, “the committee”) and found that there is no evidence to substantiate that there exists a strong emotional connection between the donor and the recipient and the donor could not clearly cite any event or circumstance that prompted her to perform the altruistic act for the recipient. The committee also found that the story of a long association between the families of the proposed donor and the recipient is a fabricated one considering the contradicting facts stated by the applicants and their failure to produce supporting documents to prove their claims. The committee also found that the story of a long association between the families of the proposed donor and the recipient is a fabricated one considering the contradicting facts stated by the applicants and their failure to produce supporting documents to prove their claims. Also, finding that the donor, who is a woman belonging to a low-income group, found to be suffering from financial challenges and she expressed depressive ideas of hopelessness and worthlessness and her suicide ideas for not having children, the committee opined that she needs urgent medical attention and professional psychiatric support. According to the second respondent, the rejection by the DLAC was upheld on appeal, finding that the appeal lacks both merit and substance; and hence, it does not require any interference by this Court. 3. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit, reiterating that the petitioners are known to each other for several years as the donor was a neighbour of the recipient in Paravannur at Malappuram District. It is pointed out that the averment that their families maintained a good relationship ever since was not disputed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kunnamkulam, who issued Ext.R2(a) report. It is further pointed out that there is no evidence of commercial dealing or middlemen during the enquiry conducted by the police and the element of financial dealing is only a suspicion. The petitioners denied the conclusion drawn in Ext.R2(a) certificate by the Dy.S.P. that the donor’s willingness to donate the organ may have been motivated by the financial benefit. According to them, the police have no authority to arrive at such a finding; and the DLAC is the authority to consider the genuineness of the decision of organ donation, which should be an independent decision; and the affinity between the parties could not be proved through documents and evidence; and the DLAC ought to have considered the affidavits filed by the petitioners in this regard. The concern about the stress of the donor is without any basis and the donation of the organ will be made only after conducting a detailed checkup and there is no contradiction in the evidence of the petitioners. According to them, the reason that the donor is a woman belonging to lower income is not a ground to reject the application and there is no reason to disbelieve the story narrated by the petitioners regarding the relationship between them. 4. According to them, the reason that the donor is a woman belonging to lower income is not a ground to reject the application and there is no reason to disbelieve the story narrated by the petitioners regarding the relationship between them. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent. 5. The second petitioner, who is the proposed donor, appeared in person before this Court on 08.09.2025 as directed by this Court by order dated 22.08.2025 and I interacted with her. She is found to have a depressed mind for the reason that she is issueless. 6. According to the petitioners, since the kidneys of the close relatives of the first petitioner were not suitable, the second petitioner came forward to donate her kidney for transplantation. The burden of satisfying the DLAC that no element of commercialisation is involved and the altruistic donation is prompted by the donor’s affection or attachment towards the recipient or for some other special reasons is upon the applicants. Hence, the applicants have to produce proof to aid the DLAC in reaching the right conclusion. Relying on the judgement of the apex court in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 11 SCC 122 , this Court in Jillet K.T. v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC 998 held that the decision making process is vested with the Authorisation Committee and it casts an onerous responsibility on the Committee since the life of the recipient is dependent on the decision of the Committee. 7. According to the petitioners, it is purely out of altruism and due to love and affection that the second petitioner has expressed her readiness to donate her kidney. The reason for the altruism, love and affection of the donor with the recipient, as stated by the petitioners, is that the husband of the second petitioner used to collect jackfruits and mangoes from the area of the first petitioner during season with his support; and during the lockdown period, they were residing near to the house of the first petitioner; and thus, they became very close. The DLAC, after examining the documents and the case of the petitioners, found that the statements given regarding their relationship were contradictory. The inconsistencies in their statements raised doubts about the genuineness of their connection. The DLAC, after examining the documents and the case of the petitioners, found that the statements given regarding their relationship were contradictory. The inconsistencies in their statements raised doubts about the genuineness of their connection. The report of the Dy.S.P., Kunnamkulam, also reveals no altruism, but a monetary gain. Thus, the DLAC dismissed their applications for kidney transplantation by Ext.P11 order. 8. The petitioners took the matter in appeal before the second respondent. Thereafter, the committee, constituted to consider the appeal, made the following observations after hearing the proposed donor: “i. The donor could not clearly cite any event or circumstance that prompted her to perform this altruistic act for the recipient. ii. The donor is a woman belonging to a low-income group and found to be suffering from financial challenges. iii. The prospective donor seems to be under strong mental stress. She expressed depressive ideas of hopelessness and worthlessness. She also expressed her suicide ideas because of life stressors (not having children). iv. The Psychiatric member of the Committee has interacted with the donor sympathetically and evaluated her present state of psychological challenges. Upon evaluation by the member, he diagnosed her depressed state of mind and recommended having a professional psychiatric intervention and support for recapturing her normal life. v. The donor did not understand the medical impact of the donation.” 9. The committee heard the recipient also and made the following observations: “i. The recipient could cite no major instance/circumstance as to the reason for this altruistic endeavour. ii. The statements of the recipient are not at all in alignment with those of the donor when narrating the story of their year-long relationship. iii. His readiness to be a candidate for swap donation is a welcoming endeavor.” 10. After analysing the facts emerged during hearing the donor and the recipient, the committee made the following observations: “i. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that a strong emotional connection exists between the donor and the recipient. ii. No major instance/circumstance could be cited by the donor, her husband, or the recipient's wife as to the reason behind this altruistic act. iii. The Committee has sufficient reason to believe that the story of a long association between the families of the proposed donor is a fabricated one, considering the contradicting facts stated by the applicants and their failure to produce supporting documents to prove their claims. iv. iii. The Committee has sufficient reason to believe that the story of a long association between the families of the proposed donor is a fabricated one, considering the contradicting facts stated by the applicants and their failure to produce supporting documents to prove their claims. iv. The Committee expressed their concern over the depressive state of mind of the donor and suggested she needs urgent medical attention and professional psychiatric support. v. Considering the mental stress that the donor has suffered from, the inclination of the donor to donate one of her kidneys could not be legally considered as informed consent. vi. The Committee observed that the decision to donate a kidney cannot be seen as altruistic and fully informed.” 11. A psychiatric member of the committee, who interacted with the donor, evaluated her present state of psychological challenges. The committee found that the decision of the donor to donate her kidney was not made from a position of informed choice as she is currently experiencing depression, which seems from having lived with infertility for a significant portion of her life and hence, her decision cannot be considered as voluntary or altruistic. It was also found that the applicants failed to establish a credible link between the donor and the recipient, combined with the inconsistencies in statements, lack of supporting documentation and the inability of the donor and recipient to cite any incident or anecdote to prove the emotional attachment. The committee, also finding that there was a vast financial disparity between the parties, recommended to reject the appeal; and the second respondent, on the basis of the recommendations given by the committee, rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the DLAC. 12. The petitioners have failed to prove the emotional attachment between them and to controvert the finding of the psychiatric member of the committee that she is facing psychological challenges. It may be true that it is impossible to prove the feelings like love and affection, but there should be a connecting link to prove altruism with the recipient or his family members. The police, also on enquiry, found that the contention was motivated by financial benefit. A detailed consideration of the issue has been done by the DLAC as well as the second respondent in rejecting the application and the appeal. The police, also on enquiry, found that the contention was motivated by financial benefit. A detailed consideration of the issue has been done by the DLAC as well as the second respondent in rejecting the application and the appeal. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am forced to hold that the willingness of the second petitioner to donate her kidney is not out of altruism or love and affection. Therefore, Exts.P11 and P14 orders do not require any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.