Supreme Court Hears Doctor’s Claim: Is ‘Brain Death’ in India a Medical Myth?

New Delhi, September 9, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India is currently reviewing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. S Ganapathy challenging the scientific and constitutional basis of "brain death" certification under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA). Appealing against a Kerala High Court judgment, Dr S. Ganapathy told the Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that the concept of brain death and its certification in India is unscientific and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. He further asserted that Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of THOTA definitions related to brain death are unconstitutional.

The Legal Challenge

Dr. Ganapathy, a senior medical practitioner from Kerala, petitioned the Kerala High Court in 2021.

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition in February 2025, noting that brain death is a legislative construct and that courts are not positioned to challenge Parliament's definitions. The High Court also reportedly utilized ChatGPT to compare international brain death policies but concluded that revisions, if any should come through legislative channels. ^[1]

Key Arguments and Counterarguments

Dr. Ganapathy’s View:

Dr. Ganapathy maintains that declaring a person "brain dead", even while physiological functions continue, amounts to harvesting organs from live bodies and infringes on constitutional protections.

It was pointed out by Dr. Ganapathy that there is no uniform assessment in regard to brain death across the globe. According to him, in the US, brain death is certified when the whole brain has come to irreversible cessation, and it is required to declare a patient suffering from brain death by observing 24 hours. He points out that whereas in the UK it is not necessary that the whole brain has to come to an irreversible cessation, and it is sufficient that observations are made for 6 hours. It is sufficient in the UK that all functions of the brain stem irreversibly cease to function. In India, brain death is certified when all the functions of the brain stem have permanently and irreversibly ceased (Section 2(d) of THOTA) and it is sufficient that observations are made for 6 hours.

Defence and Judiciary’s Position

A two-judge Bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the judiciary could reinterpret medical definitions embedded in legislation.

The Bench advised Dr. Ganapathy to consult the National Medical Commission (NMC) and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to explore scientific review, and ultimately adjourned the matter for future hearing.

What Is ‘Brain Death’ Under Indian Law?

Under THOTA, Section 2(d) defines brain-stem death as the irreversible cessation of all brain-stem functions, verified through a prescribed medical procedure. Section 2(e) considers a person deceased when either brain-stem death or cardio-pulmonary death occurs.

These definitions follow precedents, such as the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011), which stated that the brain is the seat of identity and that irreversible brain loss signifies death.

The legal debate intersects with medical ethics. Critics like Dr. Ganapathy view brain death certification as ripe for misuse, whereas defenders argue it upholds equitable resource allocation and enables organ donation that saves lives. The legal challenge could influence hospital practices and transplantation ethics, especially in cases involving consent and finality of diagnosis.

References:

1. Dr. S. Ganapathy v. Union of India and Ors, W.P.(C).No.2449/2021, Kerala High Court, February 10, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108014110/.

2. Kerala High Court, "In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam," February 10, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-02-11/5tg7ryef/Dr_S_Ganapathy_v_Union_of_India___ors.pdf.

(Rh/Eth/TL/MSM)