1. Introduction

Liability for denial of scarce biological resources refers to the legal responsibility of a government, hospital, medical institution, biotechnology company, research organisation, pharmaceutical manufacturer, or other responsible authority for unlawfully refusing, restricting, withholding, or unfairly allocating biological resources that are essential for human survival, healthcare, scientific research, environmental protection, or biological conservation.

Scarce biological resources may include:

Human organs required for transplantation, such as kidneys, livers, hearts and lungs.

Blood, plasma, bone marrow and stem cells.

Life-saving vaccines, biological medicines and essential biological products.

Human tissues, reproductive materials and genetic samples.

Rare medicinal plants and other biological materials.

Microorganisms and biological cultures required for research.

Endangered species and genetic resources necessary for conservation.

The central legal question is whether a person or institution can be held liable when it denies access to a scarce biological resource despite a legal duty, contractual obligation, constitutional responsibility, or recognised ethical obligation to provide fair access.

This area of law intersects with constitutional law, medical negligence, tort law, consumer protection, environmental law, human rights, bioethics and international law.

Important distinction: There is no single universally recognised legal tort called denial of scarce biological resources. Liability is generally established through existing legal doctrines concerning negligence, discrimination, arbitrary government action, breach of statutory duties, contractual violations and violations of fundamental rights.

2. Meaning and nature of scarce biological resources

Scarce biological resources are biological materials or substances that are limited in availability but have significant medical, scientific, ecological or social importance.

Their scarcity may arise from:

Natural scarcity: Certain organs, tissues, genetic materials and endangered species are inherently limited.

Medical scarcity: The demand for transplant organs, blood products and specialised biological treatments exceeds available supply.

Technological scarcity: Certain biological materials require specialised facilities, preservation systems and advanced technology.

Regulatory scarcity: Government restrictions, licensing requirements and export controls may limit distribution.

Economic scarcity: High prices and unequal purchasing power may prevent access.

Artificial scarcity: Hoarding, monopolisation, discriminatory allocation or deliberate withholding may reduce availability.

The law must distinguish between legitimate scarcity and unlawful denial.

A hospital cannot automatically be held liable merely because it lacks an organ for transplantation. However, liability may arise if it deliberately manipulates allocation, discriminates against a patient, ignores established medical priorities or refuses treatment in breach of an enforceable duty.

3. Essential elements of legal liability

To establish liability for denial of scarce biological resources, the following elements are generally relevant.

A. Existence of a legal duty

The defendant must have a legal obligation to provide, distribute, preserve, allocate or facilitate access to the resource.

Such a duty may arise from:

Constitutional obligations.

Statutory provisions.

Hospital-patient relationships.

Medical treatment agreements.

Government welfare schemes.

Public procurement contracts.

Environmental protection obligations.

Professional medical standards.

B. Unlawful denial or restriction

There must be an identifiable act or omission involving refusal, withholding, discriminatory allocation, unreasonable delay or improper restriction.

C. Wrongfulness

The denial must violate a recognised legal obligation. A legitimate decision based on medical suitability, genuine shortage or lawful allocation priorities is not necessarily wrongful.

D. Causation

The claimant must establish the necessary connection between the denial and the alleged injury, subject to the particular legal cause of action.

E. Actual damage or violation of rights

The consequences may include:

Death or deterioration of health.

Loss of a medically reasonable opportunity for treatment.

Physical or psychological injury.

Financial loss.

Denial of equality or dignity.

Ecological damage.

Loss of access to legitimate scientific research.

F. Absence of a valid legal justification

The defendant may rely on genuine scarcity, medical contraindications, statutory restrictions, safety concerns or legitimate conservation requirements.

However, such justifications must be lawful, rational, proportionate and supported by relevant evidence.

4. Constitutional framework in India

The Indian Constitution provides several protections relevant to denial of scarce biological resources.

A. Article 14 – Right to equality

Article 14 prohibits arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

If two patients are medically eligible for the same scarce biological resource, an institution cannot arbitrarily favour one patient over another.

For example, an organ transplant authority cannot allocate a kidney based solely on wealth, social influence, caste, religion or political connections.

However, medically relevant criteria, including urgency, compatibility and likelihood of transplant success, may justify different treatment.

Legal implications:

Arbitrary allocation can be challenged.

Discriminatory denial can violate equality.

Public authorities must follow transparent allocation procedures.

Decisions must be based on relevant and rational criteria.

B. Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty

Article 21 is particularly important because access to essential medical treatment may directly affect the preservation of life.

The right to life has been interpreted to include protection of health and access to necessary medical care.

Where a public hospital or government authority unlawfully denies essential medical assistance, constitutional remedies may be available.

However, Article 21 does not establish an unconditional right to receive any particular organ, tissue or biological resource regardless of availability, suitability or lawful allocation rules.

C. Article 21 read with Article 47

Article 47 directs the State to improve public health and nutrition and raise the standard of living.

It supports the State's responsibility to establish effective systems for:

Blood banks.

Organ transplantation.

Public vaccination.

Essential biological medicines.

Affordable healthcare.

Equitable distribution of medical resources.

D. Article 19(1)(g)

Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to practise a profession or carry on an occupation, trade or business.

It may be relevant where lawful scientific research, biotechnology activities or commercial utilisation of biological resources are arbitrarily restricted.

This right remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), as well as applicable environmental and biodiversity legislation.

E. Articles 32 and 226

These provisions provide constitutional remedies.

Article 32 allows a person to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other legal purposes.

Possible remedies include mandamus, compensation in appropriate public-law cases and directions requiring lawful reconsideration of an allocation decision.

5. Important statutory provisions

A. Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994

The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 regulates the removal, storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues and prohibits commercial dealings in them.

India Code

Important provisions include:

The Act establishes a regulatory framework to prevent commercial exploitation and ensure lawful transplantation.

Liability example:

Suppose a hospital maintains an organ allocation list but deliberately bypasses medically eligible patients in favour of an influential recipient.

Depending on the evidence and applicable rules, the hospital and responsible persons may face regulatory action, constitutional proceedings, civil liability or criminal consequences.

B. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 regulates access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge and provides for conservation and equitable benefit-sharing.

Its important provisions include:

Section 3: Certain persons require prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority for accessing biological resources.

Section 4: Regulation of transfer of research results relating to biological resources.

Section 6: Regulation of intellectual property applications involving biological resources covered by the Act.

Section 7: Regulation of access by persons covered by that provision.

Section 18: Functions and powers of the National Biodiversity Authority.

Section 21: Determination of fair and equitable benefit-sharing.

Sections 23 and 24: Functions of State Biodiversity Boards and their regulatory powers.

The Act is concerned not merely with access but also with conservation and fair distribution of benefits.

Consequently, denial or restriction of access must be assessed in light of the statutory framework. A refusal may be justified on conservation grounds, but arbitrary or legally unsupported action may be challenged.

C. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Where healthcare services fall within the statutory definition of service, a patient may seek compensation for deficiency in service.

Relevant provisions include:

Section 2(11): Definition of deficiency.

Section 2(42): Definition of service.

Section 35: Filing of consumer complaints.

Section 39: Reliefs available to consumers.

A hospital may face consumer liability if it improperly refuses an agreed medical service, mishandles available biological material or negligently administers an allocation process.

The existence of a resource shortage alone does not establish deficiency.

D. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Where denial or restriction of access concerns biological resources essential to environmental protection, the Act may become relevant.

For example, unlawful obstruction of legally authorised conservation activities involving endangered biological material may raise environmental and statutory issues.

E. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

This legislation is relevant where the disputed resource consists of regulated biological drugs, vaccines, sera or other medicinal preparations.

Unlawful withholding, distribution or handling of regulated products may attract statutory consequences depending on the applicable provisions and facts.

6. Important judicial decisions and case laws

The following cases provide the principal legal foundations for analysing liability arising from denial of scarce biological resources.

Case 1. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)

Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1996) 4 SCC 37.

Facts:

Hakim Sheikh suffered serious injuries after falling from a train. He was taken to several government hospitals but was repeatedly refused admission or treatment because the hospitals claimed that they lacked facilities or vacant beds.

He ultimately received treatment at a private hospital.

Legal issue:

Whether the failure of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment violated Article 21.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical facilities.

It recognised that failure to provide timely treatment to a person in need may violate the right to life under Article 21.

The Court awarded compensation of ₹25,000 and issued directions for improving emergency medical services.

Principle established:

The State cannot simply avoid its constitutional responsibility to provide essential medical assistance by pointing to administrative deficiencies or inadequate arrangements.

Application to scarce biological resources:

Suppose a government hospital has an available life-saving blood supply or an essential biological treatment but refuses to provide it to a medically eligible patient without a lawful justification.

The decision in Paschim Banga may support a constitutional challenge.

However, the judgment does not establish that the State must provide an unavailable organ or biological resource.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 2. Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)

Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1989) 4 SCC 286.

Facts:

The case concerned the obligation of medical professionals and hospitals to provide immediate medical assistance to persons suffering serious injuries, irrespective of procedural complications.

Legal issue:

Whether doctors and hospitals could refuse immediate medical treatment because of procedural or medico-legal formalities.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court emphasised that preservation of human life is of paramount importance.

Doctors have an obligation to extend immediate medical assistance to preserve life.

Principle established:

Procedural formalities must not unnecessarily obstruct emergency medical treatment.

Application:

Where a hospital refuses an available emergency blood product or other essential biological treatment because of avoidable administrative procedures, the judgment may support a claim that the refusal was unlawful.

It is particularly relevant where the denial creates an immediate threat to life.

Case 3. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995)

Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 42.

Facts:

The litigation concerned the health and medical protection of workers exposed to occupational hazards, particularly asbestos.

Legal issue:

Whether the right to health and medical protection formed part of the right to life under Article 21.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court recognised the importance of health and medical care as components of the right to life and interpreted the State's obligations in the context of occupational health.

Principle established:

The constitutional protection of life extends beyond mere physical existence and encompasses conditions necessary for human health and dignity.

Application:

This reasoning can support arguments that public authorities should ensure fair and non-arbitrary access to essential biological medicines and healthcare resources.

However, the case does not create an independent entitlement to a particular scarce biological resource.

Case 4. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997)

Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1997) 2 SCC 83.

Facts:

The dispute concerned the entitlement of a government employee to medical treatment and reimbursement of medical expenses.

Legal issue:

Whether the right to health was part of the right to life and whether the government had an obligation to provide appropriate medical facilities.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court recognised that the right to health is integral to the right to life under Article 21.

It emphasised the government's responsibility to provide appropriate medical treatment.

Application:

Where a government authority denies access to an essential biological medicine or treatment in breach of its applicable medical obligations, this decision may support a claim for appropriate relief.

Case 5. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)

Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1995) 6 SCC 651.

Facts:

The dispute concerned whether medical services could fall within the meaning of service under consumer protection legislation.

Legal issue:

Whether medical treatment provided by hospitals and medical practitioners could attract consumer protection liability.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court clarified the circumstances in which medical services fall within consumer protection law.

Medical services rendered for consideration generally fall within the statutory definition, subject to the recognised exceptions.

Application:

If a hospital accepts payment for storing or administering biological material but negligently refuses to release or provide that material according to its contractual and professional obligations, the affected patient may have a consumer-law remedy.

The case is relevant to deficient medical services rather than establishing an automatic right to scarce resources.

Case 6. Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018)

Uttarakhand High Court

Citation: Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3437 of 2016, decided on 21 December 2018.

Facts:

The case concerned the obligation to share benefits arising from commercial utilisation of biological resources under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

The petitioner challenged the applicability of fair and equitable benefit-sharing obligations.

Legal issue:

Whether Indian commercial entities could be subjected to benefit-sharing obligations under the statutory biodiversity framework.

Judgment:

The High Court upheld the statutory framework requiring fair and equitable benefit-sharing, including in relation to qualifying Indian entities accessing biological resources for commercial utilisation.

Principle established:

Access to biological resources is not necessarily an unrestricted commercial entitlement. It may carry statutory duties relating to conservation and benefit-sharing.

Application:

A company cannot assume that it has an unconditional right to commercially exploit scarce medicinal plants, genetic materials or other regulated biological resources.

Equally, regulatory decisions governing access must remain within the authority granted by law.

IndiaCode+1

Case 7. Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India (2025)

Supreme Court of India

Citation: 2025 INSC 1361, decided on 19 November 2025.

Facts:

The Indian Society of Organ Transplantation approached the Supreme Court raising concerns about uniformity, equality and access in organ donation and transplantation throughout India.

The petition highlighted:

Shortage of donated organs.

Differences in organ-allocation criteria among States.

Regional inequalities in transplant facilities.

Difficulties in swap transplantation.

Discrimination concerns relating to gender, class and region.

Lack of uniform national policies.

Inadequate post-operative care for living donors.

Legal issues:

Whether inconsistent State-level allocation systems could create inequalities in access to organs.

Whether national-level coordination was necessary to ensure equitable transplantation opportunities.

Whether living donors were entitled to adequate post-operative care.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court issued several important directions and recommendations, including:

Development of model national organ-allocation criteria through NOTTO.

Measures to address gender, class and regional discrimination.

Establishment of State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisations in certain States.

Development of national swap-transplantation guidelines.

Expansion of transplantation facilities in areas with inadequate public healthcare.

A five-year plan for developing transplantation infrastructure.

Measures for the welfare and follow-up care of living donors.

Strict action against hospitals failing to report required transplantation data.

Principle established:

Equitable access to scarce organs requires coordinated regulation, uniform allocation standards, institutional accountability and protection against discrimination.

Application to liability:

This is particularly important when considering denial of scarce biological resources.

For example, if an eligible patient is excluded from an organ-allocation system because of regional discrimination or an inconsistent registration policy, the judgment provides a significant constitutional and administrative-law foundation for challenging that exclusion.

The case also demonstrates that responsibility for equitable access does not rest exclusively on individual hospitals. National and State authorities have important regulatory and institutional responsibilities.

Indian Kanoon

Case 8. Vidya Ramesh Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat (2022)

Gujarat High Court

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 2021.

Legal issue:

The case concerned the domicile requirement imposed in connection with registration for organ transplantation.

Decision and significance:

The decision was referred to in the Supreme Court's 2025 organ-transplantation judgment as an example of judicial scrutiny of domicile-based restrictions on transplantation registration.

Application:

A patient should not be arbitrarily excluded from a transplant-registration process merely because of an unjustified geographical restriction.

The case is relevant to territorial discrimination and unequal access to scarce medical resources.

The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation reinforces the importance of addressing regional inequalities through uniform allocation criteria.

Indian Kanoon

Case 9. Moideen v. State of Kerala (2017)

Kerala High Court

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 21219.

Facts and legal issue:

The case concerned the welfare and protection of a living kidney donor and the risks associated with organ donation.

Judicial observations:

The Court considered the medical risks faced by living donors, including possible future complications arising from donation.

It emphasised that a donor's health and welfare must not be neglected merely because the transplant recipient benefits from the donated organ.

Principle established:

The legal and ethical framework governing scarce organs must protect both the recipient and the donor.

Application:

An organ-allocation system cannot focus exclusively on the recipient while ignoring donor safety, informed consent and continuing medical care.

The Supreme Court expressly approved the relevant observations in its 2025 judgment in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India.

Indian Kanoon

Case 10. DCM Shriram Limited v. National Biodiversity Authority (2023)

National Green Tribunal

Citation: Appeal Nos. 61–63 of 2021 (Southern Zone), decided on 30 May 2023.

Facts:

DCM Shriram Limited had accessed biological resources, including watermelon, cotton and bitter gourd, for research and related activities.

The National Biodiversity Authority imposed fair and equitable benefit-sharing obligations.

The company challenged the regulatory requirements.

Legal issue:

Whether commercial entities accessing biological resources could be required to comply with the statutory access and benefit-sharing framework.

Judgment:

The National Green Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the relevant regulatory framework.

It recognised the authority of the National Biodiversity Authority and State Biodiversity Boards to impose benefit-sharing obligations under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Principle established:

Access to biological resources is subject to statutory regulation and may carry obligations to ensure fair distribution of benefits.

Application:

A company cannot claim an unrestricted right to access and commercially exploit biological resources merely because those resources are available in nature or through commercial channels.

Similarly, regulatory decisions restricting access must be supported by the relevant statutory framework.

Important procedural qualification: The Supreme Court subsequently entertained Civil Appeal Nos. 5599–5601 of 2023 and, by its order dated 15 September 2023, stayed the directions requiring payment or deposit of the 0.5% levy pending further proceedings. Therefore, the NGT judgment should not be presented as having conclusively settled every issue in that litigation.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 11. Dabur India Limited v. National Biodiversity Authority (2023)

National Green Tribunal

Decision: 20 December 2023.

Facts:

Dabur India sought approval for access to biological resources obtained from different geographical locations in India for commercial utilisation.

The dispute involved the application of access and benefit-sharing requirements under the Biological Diversity Act.

Legal issue:

Whether commercial users of biological resources were required to comply with prior approval and benefit-sharing obligations.

Judgment and significance:

The Tribunal examined the statutory framework governing access, commercial utilisation and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.

It emphasised that the regulatory system requires attention to the interests of local communities and the sustainable use of biological resources.

It also discussed the point at which access obligations are triggered and the importance of obtaining required approvals before proceeding with regulated activities.

Application:

If an organisation unlawfully monopolises or commercially exploits a scarce medicinal plant or other regulated biological resource without complying with applicable access requirements, the biodiversity framework may provide a basis for regulatory action.

This is particularly relevant where the resource is connected with traditional knowledge or the livelihood of local communities.

Indian Kanoon

7. Different forms of liability arising from denial of scarce biological resources

Liability depends on the nature of the resource, the identity of the responsible person and the legal duty involved.

A. Constitutional liability

Constitutional liability may arise when a government authority or public hospital arbitrarily denies access to an essential biological resource in violation of fundamental rights.

Example:

A government hospital has an available supply of compatible blood required for an emergency operation but refuses to provide it because the patient belongs to a particular caste or community.

Such conduct may violate Article 14 and, depending on the circumstances, Article 21.

Possible remedies:

Writ petition.

Mandamus directing lawful consideration or provision of available treatment.

Compensation in appropriate public-law proceedings.

Directions for institutional reform.

B. Medical negligence liability

Medical negligence may arise where a hospital or medical practitioner fails to exercise reasonable care in managing available biological resources.

Examples include:

Negligent allocation of an available transplant organ.

Failure to maintain proper blood-bank storage.

Unreasonable delay in supplying an available life-saving biological medicine.

Negligent destruction of stored stem cells.

Failure to follow established medical allocation protocols.

The claimant must establish the relevant duty, breach, causation and legally recognised injury.

C. Civil liability in tort

A person may face civil liability where wrongful denial causes foreseeable injury.

Relevant legal principles include:

Negligence.

Breach of duty.

Misrepresentation.

Interference with contractual rights.

Wrongful deprivation of property, where the resource is legally capable of being owned.

Unlawful discrimination where a recognised cause of action is available.

For example, a private biological storage company that wrongfully withholds a patient's stored biological material in breach of contract may be liable for resulting loss.

D. Contractual liability

A contract may impose obligations to provide, preserve, release or distribute biological material.

Suppose a patient pays a stem-cell storage company to preserve biological material for future medical use.

If the company deliberately refuses to release the stored material contrary to the contract, it may be liable for breach of contract.

Potential remedies include:

Damages.

Mandatory or prohibitory injunctions, where appropriate.

Specific performance where legally available.

Refund of consideration.

Compensation for proven consequential loss.

E. Criminal liability

Criminal liability may arise where denial is associated with a separately punishable offence.

Examples include:

Illegal commercial dealings in human organs.

Forgery of transplantation documents.

Fraudulent manipulation of allocation records.

Criminal breach of trust, where its statutory elements are satisfied.

Deliberate destruction or unlawful diversion of biological materials.

Offences involving prohibited access or utilisation of biological resources under applicable legislation.

Importantly, mere refusal to supply a scarce resource is not automatically a criminal offence.

F. Environmental and biodiversity liability

Where the biological resource involves endangered species, medicinal plants, microorganisms or genetic materials, the denial or restriction may raise questions under biodiversity and environmental legislation.

A person who unlawfully obtains, diverts or commercially exploits regulated biological resources may face statutory consequences.

Equally, a government authority must exercise its regulatory powers lawfully and cannot impose arbitrary restrictions unsupported by legislation.

8. Liability of different responsible authorities

9. Defences available against allegations of unlawful denial

Not every denial of scarce biological resources creates legal liability.

The following defences may be available.

A. Genuine non-availability

A hospital may demonstrate that the required organ, blood product or biological medicine was genuinely unavailable.

A hospital cannot ordinarily be compelled to provide a resource that does not exist or cannot lawfully be obtained.

B. Medical incompatibility

A transplant may be refused because the available organ is medically unsuitable for the recipient.

Relevant factors include:

Blood-group incompatibility.

Tissue incompatibility.

Risk of organ rejection.

Serious medical contraindications.

Unacceptable surgical risks.

C. Lawful allocation priorities

An institution may prioritise patients according to established medical criteria.

For example, allocation may consider medical urgency, compatibility, waiting time and other legally recognised criteria.

D. Statutory restrictions

Access may be denied because of statutory prohibitions, licensing requirements, donor-consent requirements or conservation restrictions.

E. Public health and safety

An authority may restrict access where distribution would create a serious public health risk or compromise biological safety.

F. Absence of negligence or wrongful conduct

A defendant may demonstrate that reasonable care was exercised, the applicable procedures were followed and no legally actionable breach occurred.

Important: A defence of scarcity cannot automatically excuse discriminatory allocation, deliberate hoarding, corruption or unreasonable administrative conduct.

10. Remedies available to victims

A person suffering because of unlawful denial of scarce biological resources may seek several forms of legal relief.

Compensation

Compensation may cover, where legally established:

Medical expenses.

Additional treatment expenses.

Physical injury.

Loss of earnings.

Mental suffering.

Consequential financial losses.

Proven losses resulting from breach of contractual obligations.

In appropriate constitutional cases, compensation may also be awarded for violation of fundamental rights.

Injunctions

An injunction may be appropriate where a party is unlawfully withholding biological material.

For example, a court may consider directing a storage company to release preserved biological material where the claimant establishes a legal entitlement and the necessary conditions for relief.

However, a court must also consider medical suitability, safety, consent and applicable statutory restrictions.

11. International legal framework

The issue is also recognised in international human rights and biodiversity instruments.

A. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Article 25 recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, including medical care and necessary social services.

It provides an important human-rights foundation for equitable access to essential healthcare.

B. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

Article 12 recognises the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

It requires States to take steps towards:

Reducing infant mortality.

Improving environmental and industrial hygiene.

Preventing, treating and controlling diseases.

Creating conditions ensuring medical services for all.

C. Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992

The Convention on Biological Diversity establishes three major objectives:

Conservation of biological diversity.

Sustainable use of its components.

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.

D. Nagoya Protocol, 2010

The Nagoya Protocol develops the access and benefit-sharing framework.

It is relevant where denial of access concerns genetic resources, traditional knowledge and the equitable distribution of benefits.

E. World Health Organization Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation

These principles emphasise voluntary donation, protection of donors, prohibition of commercial exploitation and fair allocation of donated organs.

They provide important ethical guidance for national transplantation systems.

12. Practical illustrations of liability

The following hypothetical situations demonstrate how the principles operate.

13. Important legal principles emerging from the case laws

The judicial decisions discussed above establish several important propositions.

Principle 1 – Preservation of human life

The State has a constitutional responsibility to provide adequate medical assistance. This is supported by Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity.

Principle 2 – Emergency treatment

Procedural requirements should not obstruct immediate medical assistance necessary to preserve life. This is supported by Parmanand Katara.

Principle 3 – Right to health

Health and medical protection form an important component of Article 21. This is supported by Consumer Education and Research Centre and Mohinder Singh Chawla.

Principle 4 – Equality in organ allocation

Allocation systems must address discrimination and regional inequalities. This is particularly important following Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India (2025).

Principle 5 – Protection of donors

The health and welfare of living donors must be protected, not merely the interests of recipients. This is supported by Moideen and the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment.

Principle 6 – Regulated access to biological resources

Commercial utilisation of biological resources may be subject to statutory approval and fair benefit-sharing obligations. This is supported by Divya Pharmacy and the NGT decision in DCM Shriram.

Principle 7 – Accountability of medical institutions

Hospitals and medical institutions may face liability when they breach their professional, contractual, statutory or constitutional obligations.

14. Critical legal analysis

The most difficult issue in this area is balancing three competing interests:

First: Individual entitlement. Every person should have fair access to essential biological resources necessary for healthcare and survival.

Second: Collective welfare. Biological resources are limited. Their distribution must consider the medical needs of different individuals and the welfare of the wider population.

Third: Conservation and sustainability. Biological resources cannot be exploited without considering environmental protection, genetic diversity and the rights of communities associated with those resources.

An unrestricted right to obtain any biological resource would be legally and ethically problematic. It could encourage organ trafficking, environmental exploitation, monopolisation and unequal distribution.

On the other hand, allowing hospitals, public authorities or commercial organisations unrestricted discretion to deny access could result in discrimination, exploitation and violations of fundamental rights.

The appropriate legal approach is therefore to require:

Transparent allocation procedures.

Medically justified eligibility criteria.

Equal treatment of similarly situated persons.

Protection against economic and geographical discrimination.

Effective monitoring of biological resource distribution.

Protection of donors and local communities.

Accountability for deliberate or negligent denial.

Reasoned decisions when access is refused.

The 2025 Supreme Court decision in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation is particularly significant because it directly addresses systemic inequality in organ transplantation rather than treating each denial as an isolated hospital dispute.

15. Conclusion

Liability for denial of scarce biological resources is an important emerging area of legal analysis involving constitutional rights, healthcare obligations, medical negligence, biodiversity regulation and human dignity.

In India, Articles 14 and 21 provide important constitutional safeguards against arbitrary and discriminatory denial of essential medical resources. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 establish specialised regulatory frameworks for organ transplantation and access to biological resources.

The Supreme Court decisions in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, Parmanand Katara, Consumer Education and Research Centre and, particularly, Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India (2025) provide significant judicial foundations for protecting equitable medical access.

Ultimately, scarcity itself does not create legal liability; unlawful denial, discriminatory allocation, negligent administration or breach of a recognised legal duty may create liability.

16. Important cases for examination and legal research

Primary legal research sources:

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 – India Code

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgment

Indian Society of Organ Transplantation judgment (2025)

Biological Diversity Act – Section 21

Dabur India v. National Biodiversity Authority

Legal research note: The cases above are Indian authorities unless otherwise stated. The legal effect of the Biological Diversity Act must be assessed with its 2023 amendments and applicable rules and regulations. The NGT decision in DCM Shriram must also be read subject to subsequent Supreme Court proceedings.