Gujarat High Court permits Canadian woman to undergo kidney transplant without domicile certificate, says ‘right to life’ extends to foreign nationals under Article 21

Gujarat High Court, while relying on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case Chairman Railway Board and Ors. vs. Chandrima Das and Ors observed, the bench comprising of Justice AS Supehia observed and has reiterated that the right to live includes the right to live with human dignity, and the term ‘person’ used in Article 21 extends to citizens and foreign nationals, alike.

In the background, the High Court made these remarks by an ailing Canadian woman who was being denied a kidney transplant basis the lack of a Domicile Certificate. However, the Respondent authorities were insisting upon the woman first obtain a Domicile Certificate in order for her to undertake the necessary procedure for kidney transplantation.

Further, the petition informed the Bench that the condition of the patient was critical and she required the transplant urgently. The request for issuance of a Domicile Certificate needed for kidney transplantation has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Migration. Thus, before the High Court an instant petition was filled.

While keeping in view the facts, the bench of Justice Supehia remarked that It is very painful to know that the life of the petitioner depends on the issuance of such Domicile Certificate and it appears that the requirement of Domicile Certificate is treated at a higher pedestal than Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It was explained by the High Court that the right to live is a fundamental right without which a human being cannot live as human being, which includes all those aspects of life and make his life complete and meaningful complete and worth living. As stated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a right to live a healthy life and to enjoy all faculties of human body in its prime condition and is the core facet.

Accordingly, it was held by the demand for the Domicile Certificate could not ‘obscure’ or ‘eclipse’ the sovereignty and supremacy of Article 21 when a human’s life was at stake. In the event that the human loses her life, such formalities would ‘pale into insignificance. It was directed by the Respondent authorities to give provisional permission to the Petitioner for her name to be included in the register for the kidney transplant.