The Madras High Court has directed Tamil Nadu’s Authorization Committee to immediately permit a Bangladeshi mother to donate one of her kidneys to her minor son, holding that the committee had rejected the transplant application on irrelevant considerations.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed the writ petition filed by the child and his parents after finding that the committee had focused on doubts regarding the parents’ marital relationship instead of examining the key issue - whether the donor was the child’s mother.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, citizens of Bangladesh, had travelled to Chennai on medical visas after their minor son was diagnosed with end-stage chronic kidney disease and required a kidney transplant.
Doctors at Apollo Hospital found the child’s mother medically fit and compatible to donate a kidney. The family subsequently applied for approval before the State Authorization Committee, as required under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act for foreign nationals seeking organ transplantation.
However, the committee rejected the application. During its inquiry, questions were raised about the marital relationship between the child's parents, and the committee concluded that the spousal relationship had not been satisfactorily established.
Challenging that decision, the family approached the High Court.
After examining the records, Justice Swaminathan noted that the family had produced extensive documentary evidence, including passports, birth certificates, identity documents, family certificates, DNA reports, relationship certificates issued by the Bangladesh Deputy High Commission, and an e-Apostille certificate authenticating the documents.
The Court stressed that authorization authorities must adopt a practical and common-sense approach when assessing claims of relationship in transplant cases.
“The standard of proof cannot be placed at a high threshold,” the Court observed, adding that authorities should not act on “fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion.
The judge also emphasized that documentary evidence should generally prevail over inconsistencies in oral responses, especially where applicants face language barriers or are unfamiliar with official proceedings.
Referring to the records placed before the Court, the bench found that the evidence clearly established that the proposed donor was the child's mother.
The Court held that the committee had asked itself the wrong question.
Justice Swaminathan observed that the relevant inquiry was whether the recipient was the son of the donor. Instead, the committee focused on whether the donor and the child's father had adequately proved their marital relationship.
“The only relevant question which the Committee should have posed to itself was whether the first petitioner was the son of the second petitioner,” the Court said.
According to the judge, even if doubts existed regarding the marriage, that issue was not material to determining whether the mother could donate a kidney to her son.
Holding that the impugned order suffered from “misdirection in law and utter non-application of mind,” the Madras High Court set aside the rejection order.
The Court directed the Authorization Committee to grant permission to the mother to donate one of her kidneys to her minor son and ordered that the approval be issued immediately.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Minor Atonu Saha & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 20140 of 2026
Judge: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Decision Date: 29 May 2026
