---

---

A recent petition before the Supreme Court, filed by Dr. S Ganapathy, has challenged the constitutional validity of India’s brain death certification practices, alleging they violate Article 21’s right to life by enabling organ harvesting from individuals who may not be actually dead. Dr. Ganapathy argued that “brain death” is a construct created to support organ transplantation and asserted that people declared brain dead may retain signs of life, sometimes later regaining consciousness.

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi expressed strong reservations, highlighting that brain death is a medically defined phenomenon vital for organ transplantation, and its recognition is firmly rooted in legislative policy via the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA). The Court emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, noting that the definition and procedures for brain death are matters for the legislature and medical experts, not judicial interpretation.

The judges referenced earlier constitutional judgments permitting medical interventions such as abortion and passive euthanasia, stressing that such scientific and medical policy decisions fall beyond the courts’ remit. They reasoned that organ donation in cases of irreversible brain death helps perpetuate life for recipients and does not unlawfully intrude into the right to life.

While the petition cited rare cases of recovery after brain death certification, the Bench advised Dr. Ganapathy to present his concerns before medical regulatory bodies for possible scientific review. The challenge to THOTA’s provisions and the practice of brain death certification remains pending, with the Supreme Court opting to await the outcome of a related matter before deciding further.

This case highlights ongoing debates around end-of-life definitions and underscores the balance the judiciary maintains between enforcing constitutional rights and respecting scientific and policy determinations in sensitive medical domains.