Karnataka HC allows altruistic kidney donation process subject to approvals; State says it will finalise guidelines within eight weeks

The petitioner, a 52-year-old bachelor, sought to donate a kidney altruistically to a suitable recipient with whom he had no familial or other recognised relationship.

An earlier proposal had not proceeded because his brother objected; the petitioner later stated that his mother and brother consented to his proposed donation.

As Karnataka had no policy specifically governing altruistic donations, the Court directed the petitioner to undergo medical assessment and called on the State to consider guidelines.

The Institute of Nephro-Urology reported that the petitioner was medically fit, had been counselled about the risks of donation, and should approach Jeevan Sarthakate (SOTTO) for further processing under the applicable framework.

The State informed the Court that draft guidelines were under consideration and would be finalised within eight weeks.

1. Whether the petitioner could proceed with his proposed altruistic kidney donation to an unrelated recipient, subject to the applicable statutory, medical and procedural safeguards.

2. Whether the proposed donation could be processed while preserving the recipient’s identity from the petitioner before transplantation.

3. Whether the State should finalise guidelines for processing altruistic living organ donations.

The Court referred to the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Rules of 2014 as the governing statutory framework.

The order proceeded on the basis that altruistic donation must comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including safeguards ensuring that donor consent is free, informed and voluntary and that there is no coercion, undue influence, inducement or commercial consideration.

Medical fitness alone does not authorise transplantation; the competent authority must undertake the required scrutiny and approvals.

The medical report established that the petitioner was fit to donate, but also recorded the need for informed, continuing consent and follow-up.

The Court therefore allowed the petitioner to pursue his stated intention without treating medical fitness as automatic approval.

It left further processing, including any required verification, matching and approvals, to SOTTO under the applicable framework.

To respect the petitioner’s wish for confidentiality, it directed that the recipient’s identity and identifying particulars not be disclosed to him before transplantation; any later disclosure would require compliance with applicable law and the recipient’s informed consent.

The Court also recorded the State’s undertaking to finalise guidelines, while leaving the competent authority’s decision on the petitioner’s request independent and governed by law.

The recipient’s identity must remain undisclosed to the petitioner before transplantation, with any subsequent disclosure subject to the stated conditions.

The Court directed that the matter be relisted on 8 December 2026 to report on the State’s proposed guidelines.