Recently, the Madras High Court set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee refusing permission for a Bangladeshi mother to donate her kidney to her minor son suffering from end-stage renal disease, holding that the Committee had proceeded on an irrelevant consideration and failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence placed before it. The Court directed the Committee to immediately grant approval for the transplant and observed that administrative authorities must not allow “fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion” to defeat genuine applications for life-saving organ donations.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a dispute under Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and Rule 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, concerning permission for a Bangladeshi mother to donate her kidney to her minor son suffering from end-stage renal disease. After the family travelled to Chennai for treatment and submitted the requisite application along with documentary proof, including relationship and medical records, the Authorisation Committee rejected the request on the grounds that the marital relationship between the child's parents had not been satisfactorily established. Challenging the rejection as legally unsustainable and contrary to the material on record, the petitioners approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioners contended that the Authorisation Committee had ignored overwhelming documentary evidence establishing the mother-son relationship between the donor and recipient, including the birth certificate, DNA report, Form 21 relationship certificate, and e-Apostille authenticated records. The Counsel further submitted that the enquiry was conducted through an interpreter as the Petitioners were conversant only in Bangla/Bengali, and therefore minor inconsistencies in oral responses could not override the documentary material on record. The Petitioners accordingly sought quashing of the impugned order and permission for the transplant.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State opposed the writ petition by contending that courts should exercise restraint while reviewing decisions taken by expert authorisation committees constituted under the transplantation law. Emphasising the prevalence of illegal trafficking in human organs, the Respondents argued that the Committee had been established precisely to scrutinise such applications and that its decision ought not to be lightly interfered with. On this basis, the Respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition and confirmation of the Committee's decision.
Observation of the Court:
Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed, “The only relevant question which the Committee should have posed to itself was whether the first petitioner (recipient) was the son of the second petitioner (donor). Whether the third petitioner was the husband of the second petitioner was irrelevant. It is well settled that if an administrative decision is vitiated by an irrelevant consideration, it is liable to be set aside.”
The Court observed that when a donor claims to be a near relative, the Committee's enquiry must be directed towards verifying the genuineness of that relationship through a commonsense evaluation of all available material rather than by adopting rigid evidentiary standards. The Court further explained that the expression “conclusively establish” occurring in Rule 18 does not require proof beyond all doubt and observed that the Committee must assess the cumulative effect of the documents produced. The Court held, “The Authorisation Committee must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. There cannot be vague hunches or abstract speculation.” It further emphasised that applications for organ transplantation involve patients in urgent medical need and therefore cannot be subjected to unnecessarily high standards of proof.
The Bench also criticised the Committee for assigning undue weight to oral answers provided during the enquiry. Noting that the petitioners were Bangla/Bengali speakers who had participated through an interpreter, the Court observed, “There could be language barriers. If the oral testimony is at variance with the documentary evidence... it is the document that should be preferred.” The Court stressed that the Committee's duty was not to search for reasons to reject applications but to ascertain the truth.
The Court then examined the documentary record and found that the Petitioners had produced not only the child's birth certificate identifying the donor as his mother but also a DNA report, family certificates, Form 21 relationship certificate, passports, identity documents, and an e-Apostille certificate. Referring to India's obligations under the Hague Apostille Convention, the Court held that apostilled documents must be treated as authenticated and legally recognised documents in India without any further attestation.
The Court remarked, “The committee should have been little more sensitive when holding that the relationship of the petitioners 2 & 3 has not been established. They have virtually stigmatised the first petitioner who is a minor child.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Authorisation Committee's order, and directed the Committee to immediately grant permission for the second petitioner to donate one of her kidneys to her minor son. The Court held that while authorisation committees are entrusted with preventing organ trafficking, their enquiry must remain confined to relevant statutory considerations and be guided by commonsense evaluation of reliable documentary evidence. Administrative decisions founded upon irrelevant considerations, fanciful doubts, or speculative suspicion cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, particularly where life-saving medical treatment is at stake.
Case Title: Minor Atonu Saha & Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case No.: WP No. 20140 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. R. Swaminathan
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. N.Manoharan, Adv. R.Renukadevi, Adv. A.Adhishree, Adv. S.Shrish
Advocate for the Respondent: AGP Hasan Fizal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
