Madras High Court: In a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Authorisation Committee to grant approval for kidney transplantation between a mother and her son, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that the order dated 17 April 2026 was arbitrary and unsustainable. The Court emphasised that when the donor claims the recipient is her own biological son, such a request cannot be casually ignored, and highlighted that unless there is definite material to establish financial dealings, permission ought not to be withheld. The Court further highlighted that documentary evidence like the birth certificate, Aadhaar card, and PAN card sufficiently established the relationship, and applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, directed the Authorisation Committee to grant approval forthwith, holding that a DNA test is not required for the mother.
Background
The son was suffering from renal failure and required urgent kidney transplantation at a hospital in Chennai. His mother volunteered to donate her kidney. The application was submitted to the Authorisation Committee, but approval was denied on the ground that the relationship between donor and recipient had not been established.
The petitioners argued that documentary evidence such as the birth certificate, Aadhaar card, and PAN card clearly established the mother-son relationship. They contended that the Authorisation Committee had ignored these materials and imposed an unreasonable burden.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that when the donor claims that the recipient/patient is none other than her own biological son, the Court is unable to understand why the request of the petitioners has been casually ignored.
The Court referred to Sudha Mathesan v. Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 1633, wherein it was held that unless there is definite material to establish that there are financial dealings involving the parties, permission ought not to be withheld or rejected. If the donor states that out of love and affection he/she is making the donation, in the absence of any credible reason, the averment should not be doubted. It was further observed in Sudha Mathesan that when a non-relative makes a statement that the donation is out of altruism and not for commercial consideration, the said statement cannot be challenged.
The Court highlighted that the material enclosed in the typed set of papers more than establishes that Petitioner 1 is none other than the mother of Petitioner 2. The Aadhaar card and the PAN card of the petitioners have also been enclosed in the typed set of papers, and perusal of the same reveals that Petitioner 1 is the wife and Petitioner 2 is none other than the son.
Decision
The Court, while applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, noted that Petitioner 2 is none other than the biological son of Petitioner 1. Therefore, Petitioner 1 should not be called upon to undergo a DNA test to prove maternity. Hence, the impugned stand taken by the Authorisation Committee vide its order dated 17 April 2026 is set aside. Further, the Authorisation Committee is directed to grant permission to Petitioner 1 to donate one of her kidneys to Petitioner 2 forthwith, and the said exercise shall be done without any delay so that the necessary procedures for kidney transplantation can be completed preferably by next week.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition with no order as to costs. Further, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[Rita Chaurasiya v. State of T.N., WP No. 20047 of 2026, decided on 21-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Abhinav Parthasarathy
For the Respondents: L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader
