Kerala High Court junks PIL challenging Brain Death certification

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the validity of 'brain death' certification in India and the constitutional validity of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA), which deal with what a brain death entails [Dr S Ganapathy v Union of India & ors]..The Bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P Krishnakumar observed that the Parliament was the sole authority to define medical and legal standards for 'brain death' and held that courts could not review the legislative intent on such matters."Therefore, the Court's hands are tied. Parliament, in its wisdom, recognizes brain death through a definite medical procedure. It signifies that brain death is recognised in India, and the concept of brain death cannot be reviewed by the Court," the Court said. .Dr S Ganapathy, a 73-year-old petitioner, had first approached the Court in 2017, raising concerns over alleged malpractices by hospitals in declaring patients brain dead.At the time, the Court directed him to bring specific cases of malpractice before the relevant authorities. He later filed another petition, challenging the legal foundation of brain death certification in India, in which he noted that there is no uniform process across the globe to certify a person as brain dead. Dr Ganapathy contended that the very notion of brain death lacked scientific validity and that certifying a person as brain dead violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.He claimed that the procedures followed in India for certifying a person as brain dead under THOTA lacked uniform scientific backing.Further, he cited instances where patients declared brain dead had later regained consciousness or even given birth while on life support, questioning the reliability of the existing systemThe petitioner asserted that the absence of a prescribed time frame before declaring a person brain-dead created room for errors and thus challenged the constitutional validity of provisions under THOTA for recognising brain deaths before any organ transplantation is allowed. .The Court, however, rejected these arguments, emphasizing that Section 2(d) of THOTA explicitly defines brain stem death as the irreversible and permanent cessation of all brain functions.It further noted that Section 2(e) classifies a deceased person as someone whose vital functions have ceased either due to brain stem death or in a cardiopulmonary sense.The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India, which recognised brain death as the end of life. The Court went on to observe that the Parliament, in its legislative capacity, had adopted a definite medical procedure to define brain death, which cannot be reviewed judicially by courts."The Court cannot now enter upon a controversy to define what is brain death or not. Parliament is the only authority to define what is brain death. Brain death in India is recognized through a definite medical procedure. The Court cannot judicially review Parliament's wisdom in assuming certain facts as correct for the application of law," the High Court said. .The Court acknowledged that while instances of misdiagnosis may occur, such cases did not undermine the broader medical consensus on brain death. The Court added that in such cases, medical intervention might sustain bodily functions temporarily, but that did not negate the validity of the concept of brain death itself.The Court further relief on Supreme Court rulings in Jacob Puliyel v Union of India and In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 to reiterate that policy decisions cannot be judicial reviewed merely because alternative views exist.Finding no basis to interfere, the Court dismissed the petition..Dr S Ganapathy appeared in person.Central Government Counsel Mini Gopinath represented the Union of India, while Senior Government Pleader AJ Varghese appeared for the State..[Read Judgement]