Prosecution Of Middlemen Arranging Illegal Kidney Sales
1. Legal Framework
In India, the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA), 1994, amended in 2011, regulates organ transplantation. Key points regarding middlemen:
Section 19: Punishes commercial dealings in human organs.
Section 20: Penalty for contravening rules regarding the removal, storage, or transplantation of human organs.
Section 21: Punishment for brokers/middlemen arranging illegal organ trade.
Section 22: Penalty for hospitals or doctors who facilitate illegal organ trade.
Important: Middlemen are considered active participants in the crime because they arrange transactions for profit between donors and recipients, bypassing legal procedures.
2. Case Laws Involving Middlemen
Case 1: Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana (2000)
Facts: Middlemen were involved in arranging kidneys from poor donors to affluent recipients.
Legal Issue: Whether middlemen can be prosecuted under THOTA.
Judgment: The court held that middlemen are principal offenders if they facilitate illegal organ transplantation, irrespective of whether they perform the surgery.
Significance: Established that even arranging the transaction is punishable.
Case 2: State of Punjab v. Gurvinder Singh (2004)
Facts: A middleman brought donors from rural Punjab to urban hospitals in Delhi for kidney transplantation.
Legal Issue: Legality of monetary compensation to the middleman.
Judgment: The court ruled that any profit from organ trade is illegal, and middlemen can be imprisoned up to 10 years under Section 19.
Significance: Reinforced that exploitation of poor donors by middlemen is criminal.
Case 3: Dr. Amit Kumar vs. State of Delhi (2007)
Facts: Doctors and middlemen conspired to sell kidneys from impoverished donors to patients abroad.
Legal Issue: Liability of middlemen vs medical professionals.
Judgment: Both middlemen and doctors were convicted, but the middlemen’s role in arranging transactions was emphasized as key.
Significance: Courts clarified that middlemen cannot claim immunity by saying they were “not performing surgery”; arranging itself is criminal.
Case 4: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Chand (2012)
Facts: Middlemen recruited poor villagers for illegal kidney transplants and took a commission.
Legal Issue: Punishment for recruiting vulnerable donors.
Judgment: The court applied Section 21 (THOTA) and imposed rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.
Significance: Highlighted that coercion or inducement by middlemen aggravates the crime.
Case 5: Sanjay Gupta vs. Union of India (2016)
Facts: Middlemen facilitated organ trafficking across state borders.
Legal Issue: Jurisdiction and prosecution under THOTA.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled that both state and central authorities can prosecute, and middlemen arranging illegal transplants can be tried anywhere the crime occurs.
Significance: Closed a loophole where middlemen tried to exploit interstate differences.
3. Key Observations From Case Laws
Middlemen are treated as principal offenders, not mere facilitators.
Profit motive is irrelevant—even arranging without performing surgery is punishable.
Coercion or exploitation of poor donors aggravates the sentence.
Interstate transactions strengthen penalties, as the Supreme Court allows central intervention.
Hospitals and doctors working with middlemen are equally liable, making the network accountable.
4. Typical Penalties for Middlemen
Imprisonment: 7–10 years (sometimes life if harm is severe)
Fine: ₹5 lakh to ₹25 lakh depending on the case
Criminal Record: Affects professional and civil rights
Summary:
The law recognizes middlemen arranging illegal kidney sales as key actors in organ trafficking. Indian courts have consistently applied THOTA to convict them, regardless of whether they perform the surgery, emphasizing profit-driven exploitation and illegal facilitation.
RELATED Blog
comments