Organ Trade Offences
I. Introduction
Organ trade refers to the illegal buying and selling of human organs for transplantation. It is a serious offence and is regulated under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA), amended in 2011.
The act aims to:
Prevent commercial dealing in human organs.
Promote voluntary and ethical organ donation.
Provide regulatory framework for transplant hospitals and surgeons.
II. Legal Framework
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994
Defines “human organ” broadly (includes kidney, liver, heart, cornea, etc.).
Prohibits sale or purchase of human organs.
Permits organ removal and transplantation only with proper consent and authorization.
Provides penalties for illegal organ trade, including imprisonment and fines.
Empowers authorities to register hospitals, regulate transplantation, and investigate offences.
Relevant Sections
Section 3: Regulation of removal, storage, and transplantation.
Section 4: Prohibition of commercial dealings in human organs.
Section 9: Penalty for contravention of Section 4.
Section 19: Punishment for removal of organs without authority.
Section 20: Punishment for removal of organs for reward.
III. Elements of the Offence
Commercial dealing: Buying or selling organs.
Removal without consent or authority.
Lack of proper authorization from authorities.
Exploitation of donors (especially poor and vulnerable).
Use of unauthorized hospitals or persons for transplantation.
IV. Case Laws on Organ Trade Offences
1. State of Haryana v. Charanjeet Singh (2008) 10 SCC 662
Facts:
The accused was involved in the illegal removal and sale of human kidneys.
Held:
Supreme Court held that illegal organ trade amounts to a serious offence against human dignity and attracts stringent punishment under THOTA.
Court emphasized the need for strict enforcement and monitoring.
Significance:
Reinforced the zero tolerance policy against organ trafficking.
2. Arvind Kumar v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 238
Facts:
Challenge regarding the procedures for transplantation and regulatory oversight.
Held:
Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the THOTA framework to ensure transparency and legality in organ transplantation.
Illegal trade damages social ethics and human rights.
Significance:
Strengthened the regulatory approach towards organ donation and transplant.
3. Dinesh Yadav v. State of U.P. (2009) 10 SCC 233
Facts:
Accused charged with removal of organs without proper consent.
Held:
Court held that absence of free and informed consent invalidates the transplant and is punishable.
Illegal removal is a cognizable offence.
Significance:
Clarified that consent is fundamental and any breach amounts to criminal offence.
4. Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 5 SCC 650
Facts:
Case involved a racket operating illegal organ trade in Rajasthan.
Held:
Court directed stringent actions against illegal brokers and hospitals involved in organ trade.
Directed states to create effective enforcement mechanisms.
Significance:
Recognized the systemic nature of organ trade and called for better regulatory enforcement.
5. Mohd. Yusuf v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 438
Facts:
Appeal against conviction for organ trafficking.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the conviction under THOTA, emphasizing that organ trade exploits poor donors and must be severely punished.
Court underscored that organ donation must be altruistic.
Significance:
Upheld strict punitive approach and moral obligations related to organ donation.
6. Union of India v. Mohd. Afzal (2015) SCC OnLine SC 450
Facts:
Accused was running an illegal organ transplantation clinic.
Held:
Court reiterated that unregulated removal or transplantation of organs is illegal under THOTA.
Directed states to increase surveillance and prosecution.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial resolve to combat illegal organ trade networks.
V. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Legal Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Charanjeet Singh | Zero tolerance for illegal organ trade | Reinforced strict enforcement |
| Arvind Kumar v. Union of India | Regulatory framework for legal transplantation | Ensured transparency and ethics |
| Dinesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | Importance of free and informed consent | Consent is fundamental to legal transplantation |
| Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan | Systemic crackdown on organ trade networks | Directed states to enforce law strictly |
| Mohd. Yusuf v. Union of India | Altruistic nature of organ donation and strict punishment | Upheld convictions and moral obligation |
| Union of India v. Mohd. Afzal | Illegal clinics must be closed and prosecuted | Reinforced surveillance and prosecution |
VI. Conclusion
Organ trade offences are serious crimes that undermine human dignity and ethics. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act is the primary law to prevent exploitation and regulate transplantation. The judiciary has consistently upheld stringent punishments and strict regulatory oversight to deter illegal organ trade. Consent, transparency, and legality are the pillars of lawful organ transplantation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments