Supreme Court examines brain death certification in India, upholding the right to life and stating, “We cannot second guess the legislature,” reinforcing legal and medical authority on organ transplantation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A petition has come up before the Supreme Court of India, questioning the very foundation of brain death certification in the country. The case (Dr. S Ganapathy v. Union of India & Ors) challenges the constitutional validity of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA), particularly Sections 2(d) and 2(e), which define and recognize brain death.
The Petitioner’s Arguments
Dr. S Ganapathy, appearing in person, strongly contended that the concept of ‘brain death’ was created by transplant surgeons to facilitate organ retrieval. According to him, individuals certified as brain dead are not truly dead, as their hearts continue to beat and certain bodily functions persist. He argued:
- Brain death certification enables the removal of organs from living persons.
- Such a practice violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Cases exist where patients declared brain dead later regained consciousness or even delivered babies while on life support, raising doubts about the reliability of brain death protocols in India.
- The procedures under THOTA lack uniform scientific backing.
Dr. Ganapathy alleged that this system fuels the global organ transplant industry, which he termed as exploitative and ethically questionable.
The Court’s Observations
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi expressed reservations about judicial interference in this domain, pointing to the doctrine of separation of powers.
- Justice Bagchi remarked that irreversible brain death is not an intrusion on Article 21 but a medical definition accepted to enable life-saving organ transplants.
- He observed that organ donation allows life to be perpetuated for others when the donor has no hope of recovery.
- Justice Kant emphasized that such issues fall within the legislative domain, not the judiciary’s. The Court, he said, cannot “second guess the legislature for defining what is brain dead.”
The Bench also highlighted that the right to life has already been balanced in earlier rulings involving abortion and passive euthanasia, where medical science intersects with constitutional protections.
Background of the Case
Dr. Ganapathy’s plea had earlier been dismissed by the Kerala High Court on February 10, 2025. The High Court held that Parliament, in its wisdom, had recognized brain death, and the judiciary could not re-examine the matter. The Court noted that “the concept of brain death cannot be reviewed by the Court.”
Challenging this decision, Dr. Ganapathy approached the Supreme Court, reiterating his contention that declaring a body with a beating heart as ‘dead’ is unconstitutional.
Court’s Suggestions
The Supreme Court initially advised Dr. Ganapathy to:
- Make a representation before the National Medical Commission (NMC).
- Consult experts at AIIMS, Delhi, including its Director, Dr. M. Srinivas.
The judges noted that concepts of death vary – cardio-vascular death, cellular death, and brain death – and the law relies on brain death specifically for organ transplantation.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Punjab Floods