Supreme Court Asks AIIMS To Constitute Expert Committee For Exploring Alternatives To 'Brain Death' Verification

The Supreme Court today called for the constitution of a medical experts Committee by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to consider and report on a doctor's suggestions regarding scientific methods to ascertain 'brain death'.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing petitioner-Dr. S Ganapathy, a Kerala-based doctor, who alleged inter-alia that doctors certify a patient as 'brain dead' without even looking at them and/or on the basis of apnea test, which is subjective and not foolproof.

During the hearing, Dr Ganapathy referred to a case where the patient was declared brain dead without any physical examination and the hospitals offered to transfer his body home without his family having to pay a hefty bill if there was agreement to donate his organs.

Contesting the apnea test, the petitioner said that there should be verifiable material when a patient is declared brain dead and their organs are sought to be transplanted. As opposed to the apnea test, he suggested conducting of a brain angiogram and EEG, and argued that in case of brain death, there is no supply of blood to the brain and the brains cells become non-functional.

When Justice Mehta noted that under law, before one can be certified as brain dead, there is provision for an apnea test by a Committee and the same has to be videographed, Dr Ganapathy replied that no videography is done by doctors. In response, Justice Mehta remarked, "there's a procedure in place. It's not being complied is a completely different aspect".

Subsequently, Dr Ganapathy alleged that in practice, Form 10, which certifies a patient as brain dead, is sent to doctors' rooms for signature, who sign the same without so much as seeing the patient. He also claimed that the number of brain death cases has multiplied manifold since he filed the case.

Counsel for the Union, on the other hand, referred to Section 13 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (as amended in 2011) and Rule 5 of the relevant Rules, arguing that the law provides for constitution of Boards by the States.

Hearing her, Justice Mehta pointed out that the petitioner's grievance is regarding the mode by which a person is declared as 'brain dead'. "What should be the appropriate test before you can reach to a certain conclusion regarding the patient being brain dead? On that, your affidavit would obviously be silent, because you have just laid down a procedure and who is to follow it?", the judge said.

Justice Mehta further noted that according to Dr Ganapathy, the existing procedure does not give a very transparent outcome "because issuance of a certificate by a registered medical professional or a Board without looking at the patient, what is the verifiable data?"

At one point, Dr Ganapathy also submitted that the apnea test is scientifically proven to be a dangerous test. When the bench questioned if there was scientific data on the efficacy of the 2 tests he was suggesting, Dr Ganapathy answered in the affirmative. He also highlighted that the respondents' objection to an angiogram is on the purported ground that it can damage a kidney, however, there is ample material to show that angiogram does not damage a healthy kidney.

On a specific court query, Dr Ganapathy further contended that the tests referred to by him would not be expensive and can be done at most places. Ultimately, the bench asked Dr Ganapathy to give his suggestions in writing.

It also conveyed that it would ask the Head of Neurology Department, AIIMS to constitute a committee of 3-5 experts to give comments on the safety and viability of the 2 tests suggested by Dr Ganapathy. Listing the matter in July, the bench added that the Committee's report shall be sent in a sealed cover.

In related news, Dr Ganapathy has filed another petition before the Court challenging declaration of a patient as brain dead. The same was adjourned by a coordinate bench in September 2025 to be decided after the decision in the instant case. During the hearing, the bench expressed reservations about entertaining the petition. However, Justice Surya Kant (now CJI) suggested that Dr Ganapathy meet one Dr Srinivasan, a Director at AIIMS, to see if the institution can recommend something to the government.

Case Title: DR. S. GANAPATHY Versus THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 29395/2017