The Madras High Court has overturned a decision that denied a Bangladeshi mother the right to donate her kidney to her ailing minor son in Chennai. The court found the Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee’s refusal to be legally flawed and lacking in sensitivity, as seen in the case of Atanu Saha Vs State of Tamil Nadu. Justice GR Swaminathan mandated the committee to promptly authorize the transplant, stating the initial decision was marred by ‘misdirection in law and utter non-application of mind.’
Background of the Case
The case involved a young Bangladeshi boy suffering from end-stage renal chronic kidney disease who had traveled to Chennai with his parents on medical visas. Due to inadequate medical facilities in Bangladesh, the family sought treatment at Apollo Hospitals in Chennai, where a kidney transplant was recommended. The boy’s mother was found suitable to donate her kidney following compatibility tests.
Committee’s Controversial Decision
On April 2, 2026, the Authorisation Committee rejected the transplant application, citing the lack of evidence of the parents’ marital relationship. This decision was subsequently contested in the Madras High Court. The State argued against the plea, citing concerns over potential human organ trafficking and advising caution in overturning expert committee decisions.
Court’s Ruling and Observations
Justice Swaminathan criticized the committee’s focus on irrelevant matters, emphasizing that the primary concern should have been confirming whether the donor was indeed the boy’s mother. The court noted the irrelevance of the marital status of the parents to the case and underscored that an administrative decision influenced by irrelevant considerations is liable to be overturned.
The petitioners had presented a comprehensive set of documents, including passports, visas, a birth registration certificate, national identity cards, a family certificate, a Form 21 relationship certificate, a no-objection certificate from the Bangladesh Deputy High Commission in Chennai, family photographs, blood grouping reports, psychiatric fitness reports, and a DNA report. The court highlighted the importance of the e-apostille certificate, which legally validates documents in India without further attestation, thereby supporting the petitioners’ case.
More Read
Justice Swaminathan also criticized the committee for placing undue emphasis on oral statements during the evaluation, particularly given the language barriers faced by the Bangladeshi family, who were assisted by an interpreter during the proceedings. The court remarked that documentary evidence should take precedence over oral testimonies when discrepancies arise.
Final Verdict and Implications
The court stressed that the committee’s role should be to uncover the truth rather than reject applications, especially in urgent medical situations. The standard of proof should not be excessively high when dire medical needs are involved. The court urged the committee to avoid baseless doubts and speculative suspicions.
Moreover, the court condemned the committee’s assertion that the relationship between the parents was unestablished, stating such conclusions were insensitive and unjust, particularly stigmatizing for the minor child involved. The court affirmed the evidence presented conclusively demonstrated the mother’s relationship to the child and directed the committee to grant her the necessary permission to proceed with the kidney donation.
More Read
Representing the Bangladeshi family were advocates N Manoharan, R Renukadevi, A Adhishree, and S Shrish. The full judgment is available for further reading.
