Supreme Court expresses reservations over plea alleging that brain death certification violates right to life

Petition Questions the Concept of Brain Death

The Supreme Court is hearing a petition questioning the legality of brain death certification in India. The case, Dr. S Ganapathy v. Union of India and Ors, was argued by Dr. S Ganapathy, who appeared in person.

Dr. Ganapathy contended that the concept of “brain death” was created by transplant surgeons to facilitate organ harvesting. According to him, individuals declared brain dead are not truly dead since their hearts may continue to beat and their bodies can remain functional with medical support. He argued that allowing organ transplantation in such cases violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bench Raises Concerns about Judicial Role

The matter came up before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi, who expressed reservations about interfering with the legislative definition of death. Justice Kant questioned whether the judiciary could override what Parliament had already determined through the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA).

“The issue is completely a legislative question. For organ transplantation to work effectively, the permanent loss of brain activity is considered brain death. Can courts override what lawmakers have defined? the Bench asked.

Justice Bagchi noted that organ donation allows others to live when the donor has no chance of recovery. “Once a patient is irreversibly beyond recovery, their organs may serve as life-saving hope for others,” he observed.

Kerala High Court Ruling in Focus

The petition also challenges a February 10 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had dismissed Dr. Ganapathy’s plea. The High Court held that brain death certification is recognized under Indian law and that courts cannot substitute their own views for those of Parliament.

“The Court’s hands are tied. The High Court observed that Parliament has, by law, recognized brain death through a defined medical process, and the judiciary cannot reassess that concept.

Arguments on Reliability of Certification

Before the Supreme Court, Dr. Ganapathy reiterated his claim that procedures for brain death certification in India lack uniform scientific support. He cited cases where individuals labeled as brain dead later regained awareness or even delivered babies while kept on life support. He further described organ transplantation as “the biggest global industry,” stressing that “one person cannot be killed for another’s benefit.” Justice Kant, however, suggested that the petitioner present his concerns before medical authorities such as the National Medical Commission or consult with experts at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi.

Court Highlights Separation of Powers

The Bench made it clear that it could not substitute its own interpretation for Parliament’s legislative choices. Justice Bagchi noted that death can have different reference points in a medico-legal context, such as cardiovascular death, cellular death, or brain death. “We cannot substitute it with our interpretation. You can persuade the ministry,” he remarked.

The judges also highlighted that earlier rulings have recognized the scope of Article 21 in complex medical situations, such as abortion and passive euthanasia. According to them, recognizing brain death certification falls within a similar framework, and courts must respect legislative wisdom.

Supreme Court Keeps Issue Open

Despite its reservations, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter further after disposing of a related pending case. This leaves the door open for a more detailed judicial examination of the issue, though the Bench’s observations suggest that the court may ultimately defer to Parliament and medical experts.

Why it matters:

The ongoing case brings into sharp focus the tension between medical science, constitutional rights, and legislative authority. While the petitioner insists that brain death certification undermines the right to life, the Court has signaled that it is primarily a legislative matter, backed by medical expertise. For now, the debate continues, with the Supreme Court set to revisit the issue in due course.