Madras HC allows Bangladeshi mother to donate kidney to son, pulls up organ committee for denying permission

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order refusing permission for a Bangladeshi mother to donate her kidney to her minor son in Chennai, holding that the Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee had adopted an insensitive and legally misdirected approach [Atanu Saha Vs State of Tamil Nadu].

Justice GR Swaminathan directed the committee to immediately grant permission for the transplant.

“The impugned order (refusing permission for the kidney transplant) suffers from misdirection in law and utter non-application of mind,” the Court held.

The case concerned a minor Bangladeshi boy who suffered from end-stage renal chronic kidney disease. He was on dialysis and had come to Chennai with his parents on medical visas after the family found medical facilities in Bangladesh inadequate.

The child was admitted to Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, where doctors advised kidney transplantation. His mother volunteered to donate one of her kidneys. Compatibility tests were conducted and she was found fit to donate.

However, the Authorisation Committee rejected the family’s application on April 2, 2026 on the ground that the spousal relationship between the child’s parents had not been established. This was challenged before the High Court.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the Court must take note of large-scale trafficking in human organs and should not ordinarily interfere with the decision of an expert committee.

The Court, however, found that the Committee had focused on an irrelevant issue. It said the only relevant question was whether the donor was the mother of the recipient child.

“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 held.

The Court noted that the petitioners had produced passports, visas, 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 even a DNA report.

The Court also placed weight on the e-apostille certificate produced by the family. It said an apostilled document must be treated as a legalised document in India and does not require any further attestation.

Since the petitioners had produced the e-apostille certificate, the documents produced by them had to be treated as authenticated documents worthy of credence, the Court said.

Justice Swaminathan also criticised the committee for placing undue importance on oral answers given during the enquiry, especially when the petitioners were Bangla/Bengali speakers and had to appear before the committee with the help of an interpreter.

“The applicants might be appearing for the very first time in an official enquiry. There could be language barriers,” the Court said.

The Court added,

“If the oral testimony is at variance with the documentary evidence, the documentary evidence is in favour of the applicant, it is the document that should be preferred."

The Court said the committee’s effort should not be to reject applications, but to find out the truth.

The Court further observed that the standard of proof in such cases cannot be placed at a high threshold, especially when applicants are in dire need of organ transplantation.

“The Authorisation Committee must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. There cannot be vague hunches or abstract speculation,” it said.

The Court also made strong remarks on the committee’s finding that the relationship between the parents was not established.

“The committee should have been little more sensitive when holding that the relationship of the petitioners 2 & 3 (parents of the child) has not been established,” the Court said.

Court added,

“They have virtually stigmatised the first petitioner who is a minor child."

The Court held that the materials on record clearly established that the donor was the child’s mother. It, therefore, allowed the writ petition and directed the committee to grant her permission to donate her kidney to the child immediately.

Advocates N Manoharan, R Renukadevi, A Adhishree and S Shrish appeared for the petitioners (the Bangladeshi family).

[Read Judgment]