Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1361
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 39 OF 2025
INDIAN SOCIETY OF ORGAN
TRANSPLANTATION …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed at the instance of
the Indian Society of Organ Transplantation in order to highlight
the issues with regard to uniformity, equality and access in the
realm of organ donation for both the donors and the recipients.
2. The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short,
“the 1994 Act”) was enacted pursuant to the resolutions passed
by various States under Article 252(1) of the Constitution of
th
India. The said legislation falls under Entry 6 of List II of the 7
Schedule pertaining to “Public health and sanitation; hospitals
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.11.27
17:14:26 IST
Reason:
. The 1994 Act was adopted by all the States.
and dispensaries”
Page 1 of 14
3. Certain important amendments were made to the 1994 Act
in the year 2011, again pursuant to the resolutions passed by
the States under Article 252(1) of the Constitution of India. The
main purpose of the 2011 amendment was to include ‘tissue’
transplants within the scope of 1994 Act. The said amendment
also introduced Section 9(3A) enabling swap transplantation for
the first time. It also broadened the definition of ‘near relatives’ ,
set up the National Human Organs and Tissues Removal and
Storage Network, and established the National Registry for
Transplants. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissue
Rules, 2014 (for short, “the 2014 Rules”) were also brought into
force in line with the changes made in the 1994 Act.
4. It appears that one of the States, i.e., the State of Andhra
Pradesh has not yet adopted the 2011 amendment. It further
appears that the States of Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra
Pradesh and Manipur have not yet adopted the 2014 Rules. It
further appears that after the last affidavit was filed by the
Union of India, as per the directions issued by this Court, now
the State of Karnataka has passed a resolution dated
21.08.2025 adopting the 2011 amendment. Such a non-
Page 2 of 14
adoption till now, severely impedes the possibility of adoption of
a uniform national policy and national grid and reduces the
chances of transplantation in the concerned States as well as
the rest of the country.
5. We, therefore, request all the States/Union Territories,
who have not yet adopted the 2011 amendment and/or the
2014 Rules, to take into consideration the importance of the
issue and adopt the same.
6. It further appears that two north-eastern States i.e.,
Meghalaya and Nagaland and three Union Territories, i.e.,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Ladakh are
presently functioning without a State Organ and Tissue
Transplant Organization (for short, “SOTTO”).
Mr. K. Parameshwar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that unless the SOTTO is established
in the said States/Union Territories, the work of organ/tissue
transplant cannot be performed.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further states
that there is an acute shortage in the number of organ
donations in the country. He submits that in order to tackle the
Page 3 of 14
shortage, two policy measures need to be taken. First is linking
of brain-stem death certification with the death certification,
and the consequent option to donate organs. The second
suggestion of the learned senior counsel is development of a
national policy as well as national portal to operationalize swap
transplantation under Section 9(3A) of the 1994 Act.
8. Insofar as brain-stem death certification is concerned,
learned senior counsel submits that Form 4 and Form 4A of
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 be amended
across the country to include a column on brain dead
certification and an option to donate organs. It is the contention
of the petitioner, which is working on the national level in the
field of organ transplantation, that such a measure would
exponentially increase awareness of possibility of the organ
donation in brain dead persons and will increase the number of
organ donations pursuant thereto.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
highlighted that as per the National Organ and Tissue
Transplant Organization (for short, “NOTTO”), the importance of
donation by persons who are certified to be brain-stem dead is
Page 4 of 14
much more, as they can donate up to eight vital organs,
whereas the person who has suffered natural cardiac death can
only donate tissues.
10. Another issue highlighted by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner is with regard to the swap transplantation, which
is permitted under Section 9(3A) of the 1994 Act. According to
the petitioner, on account of low deceased organ donation rates
and donor-recipient incompatibility, a national policy for swap
transplantation would go a long way in the matter of organ
donation/transplantation. It is submitted that in the absence of
a national policy coupled with the fact that different States have
either no policy, or an independent policy, the swap
transplantation is not being done though a large number of
donors are available. It is further submitted that a national grid
for swap transplantations and organ donations would enable
different donors and different recipients in various States across
the country to connect thereby increasing the number of
transplants. It is, therefore, submitted that the Union of India
through the NOTTO must formulate a national policy to ensure
equitable access to swap transplantation for addressing the
Page 5 of 14
existing inequalities in the healthcare system.
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the capacity for organ transplantation must also take into
account the fact that the number of registered hospitals under
the 1994 Act and the 2014 Rules is abysmally low and almost
non-existent in some States. It is submitted that in some of the
States like the States of Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim and Union Territories of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, Ladakh and Lakshadweep, no government
hospital is available for carrying out organ transplantation. It is
accordingly suggested that the Union of India through the
NOTTO and in consultation with the States must evolve a five-
year plan to address these concerns and ensure that hospitals
are equipped with facilities and doctors, meeting the standards
as required under the 1994 Act and 2014 Rules in every State.
It is further stated that the said plan must also account for the
per capita transplantation requirements in larger States and
suggest measures for increasing the capacity as well as
awareness across the country regarding organ transplantation.
Page 6 of 14
12. We are also informed that the allocation criteria, which is
made by the States under Rule 31(4)(f) of the 2014 Rules differs
from State to State. It is submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that while the criteria may be
reasonable in each State, the lack of a national policy allows for
“gaming of the system” by a select few who have the resources
and capability to register in different States. It is submitted that
the allocation criteria does not address concerns of gender,
class and region thereby resulting in discrimination, which is
impermissible. The learned senior counsel submitted that the
High Court of Gujarat has struck down the requirement of
domicile for registration for transplantation in the case of Vidya
1
Ramesh Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat . It is further
submitted that a uniform national policy is imperative to secure
the substantial right to health. He submits that the Union of
India as well as the States/Union Territories should play a
cooperative role in facilitating organ donation/transplantation.
13. In response to the concern expressed by this Court when
the matter was heard yesterday that many a times the live
donors are left in the lurch after they donate their organs,
1
(2022) SCC OnLine Gug 2021
Page 7 of 14
learned senior counsel for the petitioner while referring to the
Guiding Principles for Organ Donation laid down by the World
Health Organization, submitted that the guiding principles
mandate that the donor’s concern is voluntary and informed.
He further submitted that the WHO’s guiding principle
(specifically No. 3) provides that live donations are acceptable,
when professional care of donors is ensured and follow-ups are
well organized. In this regard, he refers to the judgment passed
by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Moideen vs. State of
2
Kerala authored by one of us (K. Vinod Chandran, J., as he
then was), wherein the High Court observed thus:
“16...The renal parameters of a donor are assessed
at the time of transplant and it does not take into
account the medical complications that may arise in
future due to the stress on the remaining organ.
There is also an element of risk to the donor who is
subjected to a surgical procedure and recovery
therefrom. Quests in life are many and varied, for
the haves, but for most; the have-nots, it is ‘a better
tomorrow’. To loose hope in life and to sell ones own
organ to achieve better living conditions is not a
happy situation. Live organ transplantation for
consideration, other than love, affection for a willing
sacrifice, is abhorrent to the concept of a healthy,
civilized society.”
2
(2017) SCC OnLine Ker 21219
Page 8 of 14
14. It is relevant to note that the Kerala High Court notices the
WHO’s Guiding Principles for Organ Donation and holds that
“ Truly altruistic motives will also not be directed against an
individual and life of one is as precious of yet another” .
15. We concur with the view taken by the High Court of Kerala
and hold that though the life of a recipient is required to be
taken care of, equally the life of a live donor who parts with a
valuable part of his body should not be neglected and should be
adequately taken care of after the operation is carried out.
16. In that view of the matter, we find it appropriate that the
NOTTO must come forward with a national policy which also
addresses concerns with regard to the maintenance of the
health of a live donor after the operation is carried out.
17. We have also heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General of India and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India.
18. We must place on record our appreciation for the learned
Solicitor General of India as well as learned Additional Solicitor
General, who have assisted this Court by not treating the
present petition as an adversarial litigation. We must also
Page 9 of 14
place on record our appreciation for the Union of India as it has
acted in a collaborative manner with the petitioner to arrive at
practical solutions for the issues raised in the petition.
19. In light of the above, we issue the following directions:
i. We request the Union of India to persuade the State of
Andhra Pradesh through its Chief Secretary or the
Principal Secretary of Health to adopt the
Transplantation of Human Organs (Amendment) Act,
2011 by explaining to them the importance of such
adoption.
ii. We also request the Union of India to, in a similar
manner, persuade the States of Karnataka, Telangana,
Andhra Pradesh and Manipur to adopt the 2014 Rules.
iii. We direct the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare,
Union of India to personally monitor the aforesaid
points contained in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this
paragraph.
iv. The Union of India is directed to constitute a SOTTO for
the States of Meghalaya and Nagaland under the aegis
of National Organ Transplant Program after due
Page 10 of 14
consultation with the concerned States.
v. The Union of India through NOTTO is requested to
evolve model allocation criteria in consultation with all
the States so as to ensure a uniform national policy for
transplantation. The uniform national policy guidelines
must include provisions to alleviate the concerns with
respect to gender, class and regional discrimination and
provide appropriate remedial provisions for the same.
The policy must endeavor to have uniform criteria for
the registration of patients, donors and formats
throughout the country.
vi. We also request the Union of India through Ministry of
Home Affairs in consultation with NOTTO, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare and the petitioner-
organization to consider amending Form 4 and Form 4A
of the so
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999
as to include a column on whether the deceased was a
case of brain-stem death and if that be the case to
indicate whether the option to donate organs was given
to the relatives of the deceased.
Page 11 of 14
vii. We further request the Union of India through NOTTO
to evolve national swap transplantation guidelines in
consultation with all States to implement Section 9(3) of
the 1994 Act. The swap transplantation guidelines
should be on a national level providing equal
opportunities to all the persons for swap and must be
done digitally through an accessible web portal.
viii. The Union of India through NOTTO in consultation with
all the States/Union Territories is requested to develop
transplantation facilities where there are inadequate
public health facilities. Further, the Union of India
through the NOTTO is requested to develop a five-year
plan mapping the course for development of
transplantation facilities in India.
ix. We further request the Union of India to take on board
all the States/Union Territories through the NOTTO and
evolve guidelines for welfare of live donors, including
measures to ensure an informed and voluntary consent,
maintenance of a portal, mandatory follow-up with the
doctors and to ensure they are cared for. This is to
Page 12 of 14
ensure that commercialization and exploitation of
donors is prevented.
x. We request all the States/Union Territories to ensure
that data related to organ donation and transplantation
along with the details of donors and recipients of organs
and tissues is reported by the concerned hospitals to
the national registry maintained by the NOTTO as
mandated under Section 13D of the
1994 Act.
xi. We further direct all the State Governments/Union
Territory Administrations to ensure that strict action is
taken against the defaulting hospitals, who fail to
furnish the data as has been directed by us in sub-
paragraph no. (x) of this paragraph.
20. We reiterate our appreciation for the Union of India, the
Solicitor General of India and the Additional Solicitor General
of India for not treating the present matter as an adversarial
litigation and assisting the Court in a collaborative manner. We
also place on record our appreciation for Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned senior counsel, and his assisting counsel, who, despite
Page 13 of 14
not possessing any expertise in medical field, have assisted us
in passing the aforesaid judgment on the basis of their deep
research and dedication.
21. The matter be placed after six months, preferably before a
Bench of which K. Vinod Chandran, J., is a member.
.…………..................CJI.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.……………...................J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
th
19 NOVEMBER, 2025
Page 14 of 14
2025 INSC 1361
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 39 OF 2025
INDIAN SOCIETY OF ORGAN
TRANSPLANTATION …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed at the instance of
the Indian Society of Organ Transplantation in order to highlight
the issues with regard to uniformity, equality and access in the
realm of organ donation for both the donors and the recipients.
2. The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short,
“the 1994 Act”) was enacted pursuant to the resolutions passed
by various States under Article 252(1) of the Constitution of
th
India. The said legislation falls under Entry 6 of List II of the 7
Schedule pertaining to “Public health and sanitation; hospitals
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.11.27
17:14:26 IST
Reason:
. The 1994 Act was adopted by all the States.
and dispensaries”
Page 1 of 14
3. Certain important amendments were made to the 1994 Act
in the year 2011, again pursuant to the resolutions passed by
the States under Article 252(1) of the Constitution of India. The
main purpose of the 2011 amendment was to include ‘tissue’
transplants within the scope of 1994 Act. The said amendment
also introduced Section 9(3A) enabling swap transplantation for
the first time. It also broadened the definition of ‘near relatives’ ,
set up the National Human Organs and Tissues Removal and
Storage Network, and established the National Registry for
Transplants. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissue
Rules, 2014 (for short, “the 2014 Rules”) were also brought into
force in line with the changes made in the 1994 Act.
4. It appears that one of the States, i.e., the State of Andhra
Pradesh has not yet adopted the 2011 amendment. It further
appears that the States of Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra
Pradesh and Manipur have not yet adopted the 2014 Rules. It
further appears that after the last affidavit was filed by the
Union of India, as per the directions issued by this Court, now
the State of Karnataka has passed a resolution dated
21.08.2025 adopting the 2011 amendment. Such a non-
Page 2 of 14
adoption till now, severely impedes the possibility of adoption of
a uniform national policy and national grid and reduces the
chances of transplantation in the concerned States as well as
the rest of the country.
5. We, therefore, request all the States/Union Territories,
who have not yet adopted the 2011 amendment and/or the
2014 Rules, to take into consideration the importance of the
issue and adopt the same.
6. It further appears that two north-eastern States i.e.,
Meghalaya and Nagaland and three Union Territories, i.e.,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Ladakh are
presently functioning without a State Organ and Tissue
Transplant Organization (for short, “SOTTO”).
Mr. K. Parameshwar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that unless the SOTTO is established
in the said States/Union Territories, the work of organ/tissue
transplant cannot be performed.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further states
that there is an acute shortage in the number of organ
donations in the country. He submits that in order to tackle the
Page 3 of 14
shortage, two policy measures need to be taken. First is linking
of brain-stem death certification with the death certification,
and the consequent option to donate organs. The second
suggestion of the learned senior counsel is development of a
national policy as well as national portal to operationalize swap
transplantation under Section 9(3A) of the 1994 Act.
8. Insofar as brain-stem death certification is concerned,
learned senior counsel submits that Form 4 and Form 4A of
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 be amended
across the country to include a column on brain dead
certification and an option to donate organs. It is the contention
of the petitioner, which is working on the national level in the
field of organ transplantation, that such a measure would
exponentially increase awareness of possibility of the organ
donation in brain dead persons and will increase the number of
organ donations pursuant thereto.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
highlighted that as per the National Organ and Tissue
Transplant Organization (for short, “NOTTO”), the importance of
donation by persons who are certified to be brain-stem dead is
Page 4 of 14
much more, as they can donate up to eight vital organs,
whereas the person who has suffered natural cardiac death can
only donate tissues.
10. Another issue highlighted by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner is with regard to the swap transplantation, which
is permitted under Section 9(3A) of the 1994 Act. According to
the petitioner, on account of low deceased organ donation rates
and donor-recipient incompatibility, a national policy for swap
transplantation would go a long way in the matter of organ
donation/transplantation. It is submitted that in the absence of
a national policy coupled with the fact that different States have
either no policy, or an independent policy, the swap
transplantation is not being done though a large number of
donors are available. It is further submitted that a national grid
for swap transplantations and organ donations would enable
different donors and different recipients in various States across
the country to connect thereby increasing the number of
transplants. It is, therefore, submitted that the Union of India
through the NOTTO must formulate a national policy to ensure
equitable access to swap transplantation for addressing the
Page 5 of 14
existing inequalities in the healthcare system.
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the capacity for organ transplantation must also take into
account the fact that the number of registered hospitals under
the 1994 Act and the 2014 Rules is abysmally low and almost
non-existent in some States. It is submitted that in some of the
States like the States of Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim and Union Territories of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, Ladakh and Lakshadweep, no government
hospital is available for carrying out organ transplantation. It is
accordingly suggested that the Union of India through the
NOTTO and in consultation with the States must evolve a five-
year plan to address these concerns and ensure that hospitals
are equipped with facilities and doctors, meeting the standards
as required under the 1994 Act and 2014 Rules in every State.
It is further stated that the said plan must also account for the
per capita transplantation requirements in larger States and
suggest measures for increasing the capacity as well as
awareness across the country regarding organ transplantation.
Page 6 of 14
12. We are also informed that the allocation criteria, which is
made by the States under Rule 31(4)(f) of the 2014 Rules differs
from State to State. It is submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that while the criteria may be
reasonable in each State, the lack of a national policy allows for
“gaming of the system” by a select few who have the resources
and capability to register in different States. It is submitted that
the allocation criteria does not address concerns of gender,
class and region thereby resulting in discrimination, which is
impermissible. The learned senior counsel submitted that the
High Court of Gujarat has struck down the requirement of
domicile for registration for transplantation in the case of Vidya
1
Ramesh Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat . It is further
submitted that a uniform national policy is imperative to secure
the substantial right to health. He submits that the Union of
India as well as the States/Union Territories should play a
cooperative role in facilitating organ donation/transplantation.
13. In response to the concern expressed by this Court when
the matter was heard yesterday that many a times the live
donors are left in the lurch after they donate their organs,
1
(2022) SCC OnLine Gug 2021
Page 7 of 14
learned senior counsel for the petitioner while referring to the
Guiding Principles for Organ Donation laid down by the World
Health Organization, submitted that the guiding principles
mandate that the donor’s concern is voluntary and informed.
He further submitted that the WHO’s guiding principle
(specifically No. 3) provides that live donations are acceptable,
when professional care of donors is ensured and follow-ups are
well organized. In this regard, he refers to the judgment passed
by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Moideen vs. State of
2
Kerala authored by one of us (K. Vinod Chandran, J., as he
then was), wherein the High Court observed thus:
“16...The renal parameters of a donor are assessed
at the time of transplant and it does not take into
account the medical complications that may arise in
future due to the stress on the remaining organ.
There is also an element of risk to the donor who is
subjected to a surgical procedure and recovery
therefrom. Quests in life are many and varied, for
the haves, but for most; the have-nots, it is ‘a better
tomorrow’. To loose hope in life and to sell ones own
organ to achieve better living conditions is not a
happy situation. Live organ transplantation for
consideration, other than love, affection for a willing
sacrifice, is abhorrent to the concept of a healthy,
civilized society.”
2
(2017) SCC OnLine Ker 21219
Page 8 of 14
14. It is relevant to note that the Kerala High Court notices the
WHO’s Guiding Principles for Organ Donation and holds that
“ Truly altruistic motives will also not be directed against an
individual and life of one is as precious of yet another” .
15. We concur with the view taken by the High Court of Kerala
and hold that though the life of a recipient is required to be
taken care of, equally the life of a live donor who parts with a
valuable part of his body should not be neglected and should be
adequately taken care of after the operation is carried out.
16. In that view of the matter, we find it appropriate that the
NOTTO must come forward with a national policy which also
addresses concerns with regard to the maintenance of the
health of a live donor after the operation is carried out.
17. We have also heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General of India and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India.
18. We must place on record our appreciation for the learned
Solicitor General of India as well as learned Additional Solicitor
General, who have assisted this Court by not treating the
present petition as an adversarial litigation. We must also
Page 9 of 14
place on record our appreciation for the Union of India as it has
acted in a collaborative manner with the petitioner to arrive at
practical solutions for the issues raised in the petition.
19. In light of the above, we issue the following directions:
i. We request the Union of India to persuade the State of
Andhra Pradesh through its Chief Secretary or the
Principal Secretary of Health to adopt the
Transplantation of Human Organs (Amendment) Act,
2011 by explaining to them the importance of such
adoption.
ii. We also request the Union of India to, in a similar
manner, persuade the States of Karnataka, Telangana,
Andhra Pradesh and Manipur to adopt the 2014 Rules.
iii. We direct the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare,
Union of India to personally monitor the aforesaid
points contained in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this
paragraph.
iv. The Union of India is directed to constitute a SOTTO for
the States of Meghalaya and Nagaland under the aegis
of National Organ Transplant Program after due
Page 10 of 14
consultation with the concerned States.
v. The Union of India through NOTTO is requested to
evolve model allocation criteria in consultation with all
the States so as to ensure a uniform national policy for
transplantation. The uniform national policy guidelines
must include provisions to alleviate the concerns with
respect to gender, class and regional discrimination and
provide appropriate remedial provisions for the same.
The policy must endeavor to have uniform criteria for
the registration of patients, donors and formats
throughout the country.
vi. We also request the Union of India through Ministry of
Home Affairs in consultation with NOTTO, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare and the petitioner-
organization to consider amending Form 4 and Form 4A
of the so
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999
as to include a column on whether the deceased was a
case of brain-stem death and if that be the case to
indicate whether the option to donate organs was given
to the relatives of the deceased.
Page 11 of 14
vii. We further request the Union of India through NOTTO
to evolve national swap transplantation guidelines in
consultation with all States to implement Section 9(3) of
the 1994 Act. The swap transplantation guidelines
should be on a national level providing equal
opportunities to all the persons for swap and must be
done digitally through an accessible web portal.
viii. The Union of India through NOTTO in consultation with
all the States/Union Territories is requested to develop
transplantation facilities where there are inadequate
public health facilities. Further, the Union of India
through the NOTTO is requested to develop a five-year
plan mapping the course for development of
transplantation facilities in India.
ix. We further request the Union of India to take on board
all the States/Union Territories through the NOTTO and
evolve guidelines for welfare of live donors, including
measures to ensure an informed and voluntary consent,
maintenance of a portal, mandatory follow-up with the
doctors and to ensure they are cared for. This is to
Page 12 of 14
ensure that commercialization and exploitation of
donors is prevented.
x. We request all the States/Union Territories to ensure
that data related to organ donation and transplantation
along with the details of donors and recipients of organs
and tissues is reported by the concerned hospitals to
the national registry maintained by the NOTTO as
mandated under Section 13D of the
1994 Act.
xi. We further direct all the State Governments/Union
Territory Administrations to ensure that strict action is
taken against the defaulting hospitals, who fail to
furnish the data as has been directed by us in sub-
paragraph no. (x) of this paragraph.
20. We reiterate our appreciation for the Union of India, the
Solicitor General of India and the Additional Solicitor General
of India for not treating the present matter as an adversarial
litigation and assisting the Court in a collaborative manner. We
also place on record our appreciation for Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned senior counsel, and his assisting counsel, who, despite
Page 13 of 14
not possessing any expertise in medical field, have assisted us
in passing the aforesaid judgment on the basis of their deep
research and dedication.
21. The matter be placed after six months, preferably before a
Bench of which K. Vinod Chandran, J., is a member.
.…………..................CJI.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.……………...................J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
th
19 NOVEMBER, 2025
Page 14 of 14