[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Lenin Udhayakumar R.V vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 13 May, 2026
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.05.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI. J
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
and
W.M.P.No.20586 of 2026
Lenin Udhayakumar R.V.
S/o.P.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Chief Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
Email ID: [email protected]
2. The Director of Medical Education and Research
cum The Chairperson,
State Level Authorisation Committee,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
Email ID: [email protected]
3. The Dean, Madras Medical College cum
The Chairperson, Northern District Level Authorisation Committee,
Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital
Chennai - 600 003.
Email ID: [email protected]
Page Nos.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
4. M/s.Apollo Speciality Hospitals, Vanagaram
Rep. by its Medical Superintendent,
Plot No.64, Vanagaram-Ambattur Road,
Ayanambakkam,
Chennai - 600 095. … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records
about the impugned decision dated 24.04.2026 vide
Ref.No.11312/P&D/2026 published by the 3rd respondent Authorization
Committee rejecting the petitioner's application for renal transplantation and
quash the same and consequently permit the renal transplant from the
petitioner's mother to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation
dated 09.05.2026, within the time frame as stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate [R1 to R3]
*****
ORDER
Challenging the impugned decision dated 24.04.2026 published by the
third respondent Authorization Committee rejecting the petitioner's
application for renal transplantation and to quash the same and
consequently, permitting the petitioner's mother to donate kidney to the
petitioner for renal transplantation based on the petitioner's representation
dated 09.05.2026, this writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has
dealt with similar matter in W.P.No.6828 of 2026 and by order dated
05.03.2026 has passed a favourable order to another applicant observing that
it is not necessary for the Authorization Committee to evaluate the medical
fitness of the organ donor. Relying upon the same, the petitioner sought for
the indulgence of this Court.
3. A careful perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6828
of 2026 would make it clear that the same would cover the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the relevant portion of the same is
extracted hereunder:
“7. The relationship between the donor and donee is not in
dispute. The 1st petitioner is suffering from Chronic Kidney Disease
and he is treated in the third respondent/hospital. The third
respondent/hospital has also given certificate to the effect that the
petitioner’s mother/donor is fit for such surgery. However, the
Authorisation Committee Government has assessed the 2 nd petitioner
/ donor and rejected the application as she has medically unfit.
8. It is relevant to note that as per Rule 18 of the Rules,
where, the proposed transplant of organs is between near relatives
related genetically, namely, grandmother, grandfather, mother,
father, brother, sister, son, daughter, grandson and granddaughter,
above the age of eighteen years, the competent authority as defined
under Rule 2(c) or Authorisation Committee (in case donor or
recipient is a foreigner) shall evaluate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
9. Rule 2(c) of the Rules reads as follows:
2.Definitions.~
competent authority means the Head of the institution or
hospital carrying out transplantation or committee constituted by
the head of the institution or hospital for the purpose.
10. The said rule makes it clear that only if the donor or
recipient is a foreigner, the Authorisation Committee had to
evaluate as to whether the relatives as defined in the Act is fit for
such surgery and transplant. In the present case, the donor is the
near relative to the 1st petitioner, who is his mother and hence, the
evaluation from the 2nd respondent is not necessary for the 1st
petitioner. In the present case on hand, as per Rule 2(c) the
competent authority, who is the 3rd respondent Hospital, has clearly
given a certificate to the effect that he donor / 2 nd petitioner is fit to
undergo surgery.
11. Further Section 9(3-A) of the Act indicates that if the
donor is not compatible biologically as a donor for the recipient,
then the approval from the Authorisation Committee is required.
The fact remains in this case that the competent authority and other
medical officers have clearly found that the donor is fit for surgery.
When the experts of 3rd respondent / hospital, have examined the
donor and donee and given certificates, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order cannot be a bar for the transplantation.”
4. A careful perusal of the impugned decision would make it clear that
the petitioner's application is rejected without any proper reason. In view of
the same, this Court issues the following directions:
i. The competent authority of the fourth respondent/hospital shall once
again assess the petitioner fully in their hospital for comprehensive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
evaluation;
ii. After thorough assessment and after satisfying all the parameters, the
4th respondent/hospital can take all the decisions based on the results
of the evaluation; and
iii. If the 4th respondent/hospital is satisfied that the petitioner is fit for
surgery, then, it may proceed on with the transplantation.
With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.05.2026
Note : Issue order copy on 14.05.2026
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
gpa/gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
L.VICTORIA GOWRI. J
gm/gpa
To
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government
Health and Family Welfare Department
Chief Secretariat
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education and Research
cum The Chairperson, State Level Authorisation Committee
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
3. The Dean, Madras Medical College cum
The Chairperson, Northern District Level Authorisation Committee
Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital
Chennai - 600 003.
4. M/s.Apollo Speciality Hospitals, Vanagaram
Rep. by its Medical Superintendent
Plot No.64, Vanagaram-Ambattur Road
Ayanambakkam
Chennai - 600 095.
Writ Petition No.19327 of 2026
13.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
