Supreme Court heard a matter concerning the National Guidelines on Brain-Stem Death Certification, 2026, and AIIMS report

The Supreme Court on Monday heard a matter concerning the National Guidelines on Brain-Stem Death Certification, 2026, with the Bench taking note of the recently released guidelines and an AIIMS report already placed on record.

The petitioner-in-person, Dr. S. Ganapathy, informed the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that he had examined the new guidelines, which are available in the public domain.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the guidelines were recently released on Organ Donation Day and were prepared with inputs from doctors at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

The Court noted that an AIIMS report had already been received in the matter.

The Bench observed that if any significant or relevant issue arose from the report, the parties could seek an explanation from AIIMS.

The petitioner-in-person also sought permission to submit a questionnaire to the respondents.

The Court permitted him to do so, observing that the questionnaire could be furnished one week in advance.

When the petitioner informed the Court that he had six copies of the questionnaire ready, the Bench clarified that if the questions were medical in nature, the respondents would be given adequate time to respond.

The Court ultimately directed that the questionnaire be served on the respondents within four weeks.

The Bench also noted that the petitioner had already examined the National Guidelines on Brain-Stem Death Certification, 2026, and that the guidelines were publicly available.

The Court proceeded to seek responses from the concerned respondents, including the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

The matter is next listed for October 6, 2026.

Last year, in April, the Court had directed the constitution of an expert medical committee by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to examine and report on scientific methods for determining “brain death,” amid concerns raised over the reliability and transparency of existing procedures.

What is the apnea method?

The apnea method, primarily known as apnea testing or apnea-based treatment, refers to two distinct contexts: diagnosing brain death by testing for spontaneous breathing, or the management of sleep apnea.

Notably, in September 2025, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had noted that the question essentially pertained to medical science and public health policy. “You have experience and understand the subject well. Why don’t you make a representation to the NMC (National Medical Commission) or another expert body? We can request them to examine it,” the Bench suggested to the petitioner, cautioning that while the grievance may be genuine, the Court’s powers in the matter were limited.

Justice Surya Kant had remarked, “We may agree with you, but our powers are limited. We cannot direct Parliament. Ultimately, this may require legislative intervention.”

Dr. Ganapathy, however had pressed that the judiciary could not abdicate its responsibility to examine whether the current legal position is constitutional. He had cited remarks recently made by the Chief Justice of India at an event in Amravati, where the CJI reportedly said that “it is the Constitution, not Parliament, that is supreme,” and that courts must intervene to uphold constitutional guarantees.

“This case on brain death highlights that the term itself is a misnomer, used only to harvest organs from those who are not truly dead,” he submitted. He recounted instances where patients with treatable brain clots were kept untreated, only to be declared brain dead after a few days, with families then being pressured to either take the body or agree to organ donation. “This has happened to 1,500 youngsters,” he had alleged.

Case Title: Dr. S Ganapathy v. Union of India

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Hearing Date: August 24, 2026

Tags: