PANNE SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India lie in narrow campas, which are as under :

(2.) Mr. Rohitashwa Kajala, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a fear psychosis prevailing amongst the Doctors of Rajasthan that in case any Doctor transplants the Kidney, he might be arrested or prosecuted by the police and in view of the said apprehension, the Doctors are refusing to transplant the Kidney. Keeping in view the fact that the question relates to the preservation of human life which is a sacrosanct and fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and in view of the interest of the general public of the State of Rajasthan, the Advocate General was requested to place the stand of the State Government and the members of the Bar were also requested to address the Court and to put forth their submissions if they so like in order to decide the controversy.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rohitashwa Kajala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.P. Agrawal, learned Advocate General with Mr. J.M. Jain for the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Union of India, Mr. S.K. Gupta on behalf of the Private Doctors Association of Rajasthan, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Balwada, Mr. G.G. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Mr. M.A. Khan, Mr. S.B. Mathur, Mr. J.P. Sharma, Mr. R.P. Panwar, Mr. P.N. Agrawal, Mr. A.S. Upadhyay, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma and Dr. Y.C. Sharma.