New Delhi, April 1: Kuldeep Singh desperately needs a kidney transplant but the powers that have to greenlight it are busy playing football with his fate.

Although one of his relatives from Ludhiana ? Kuldeep is a Punjabi undergoing treatment in a Chennai hospital ? is willing to part with a kidney, the operation has been stalled because the human organ transplant sanctioning authority of neither Punjab nor Tamil Nadu is willing to give the go-ahead.

Both states claim it is the responsibility of the other to clear the transplant. Punjab says Tamil Nadu should do it because the transplant will be done in that state. Tamil Nadu says Punjab should do it because Kuldeep belongs to that state.

Under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, states have been authorised to sanction transplants, the idea being to check trade in human organs and ensure punitive action against racketeers removing organs of unsuspecting persons and selling them.

The Supreme Court today ruled it was the job of the Punjab team to look into the matter. ?The authorisation committees of the state to which the donor and the donee belong have to undertake the exercise to find out whether the approval is to be accorded,? the court said.

Such a committee would be in a ?better position to ascertain the true intent and the purpose for the authorisation to remove the organ and whether any commercial element was involved or not?, the division bench of Justices Arijit Passayat and S.H. Kapadia said.

The judges said it would not be ?in line with the legislative intent to require the authorisation committee of the state where the recipient is undergoing medical treatment to decide the issue whether approval is to be accorded.?

Urging the Punjab team to urgently examine the matter, the court said: ?If the permission for the donation is given, then the same would be transmitted to the Tamil Nadu hospital on the same day, so the authorisation committee of that state could consider the therapeutic angles.?

The bench also noted that the human organs transplantation act had a laudable objective and ?it would be appropriate for states which have not yet adopted the act to do so immediately?.

Since the objective was to rule out commercial dealings, it would be desirable if the donor and the recipient gave details of their financial positions and vocations, the court said. The law could be amended to make furnishing of these details mandatory, it added.