Every Non-Relative Organ Donor Can't Be Viewed With Suspicion Of Commercial Dealings: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant approval for the kidney transplant of a law student from his maternal aunt's husband's brother. Justice PT Asha observed that not every third-party donor has to be seen through the eyes of suspicion, and the Authorisation Committee only had to scrutinise...
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant approval for the kidney transplant of a law student from his maternal aunt's husband's brother.
Justice PT Asha observed that not every third-party donor has to be seen through the eyes of suspicion, and the Authorisation Committee only had to scrutinise whether the donation was backed by any commercial interest.
“Every third-party donor does not require to be scrutinised with a needle of suspicion as there are genuine donors who come forward voluntarily to donate their organ and such third party donor's are therefore not ones who have been exploited. It is, however, the duty of the Authorisation Committee to examine, investigate and arrive at the conclusion that the donation is not backed by any commercial interest for which the rules provide certain parameters,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a 20-year-old law student with chronic kidney failure. The court was informed that the student was advised to undergo renal transplant surgery. Though all the near relatives were subjected to medical tests and none of them were found to be match. At that time, the student's maternal aunt's husband's brother came forward as a willing donor.
The petitioner submitted that an application under Form 11 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules 2014 was submitted along with all the requisite documents. The Authorisation Committee called the donor and the recipient for an interview on January 9, 2026. However, the committee rejected the application.
The court noted that Section 9(5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act dealt with joint appeal by the donor and the recipient. The court further noted that Rule 7(3) of the Rules provided the guidelines for evaluation.
In the present case, the court noted tat the donor had willingly come forward to donate the order saying that “saving a life was important”. The court also noted that the donor was not a total stranger to the petitioner and the relationship was clearly described in the documents filed before the authority. The court noted that when there was nothing to show that the donation was not out of altruism, the rejection by the committee was arbitrary and baseless.
“There is no material produced on the side of the respondents to show that the donor has not come forward to donate his organ out of altruism, (the fact of caring about the needs and happiness of other people more than your own) . In the absence of the above, the rejection by the Authorisation Committee is arbitrary and baseless,” the court said.
The court remarked that the authorisation committee had overlooked the fact that the donor and recipient were not strangers but were acquainted/related through near relatives. The court thus set aside the order of the authorisation committee and directed it to grant permission for transplantation within 3 weeks. The court added that if permission was not granted within the stipulated time, it will be deemed to have been granted.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Manoharan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Bindran, AGP, Mrs. T. Vennila
Case Title: B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Case No: W.P.No.2127 of 2026