Delhi High Court: In a petition filed on behalf of the minor through his mother, seeking permission under Section 9(1B), Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rule 5(3)(g), Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 to donate a portion of his liver to his father, who was suffering from advanced chronic liver disease with cirrhosis, portal hypertension, ascites, and hepatocellular carcinoma, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. permitted a 17-year-old minor to donate a part of his liver to his father, observing that while the law generally prohibits living organ donation by minors, such donations may be allowed in exceptional medical circumstances where the statutory requirements are fully satisfied. The Court noted that liver transplantation was the only viable lifesaving treatment, and that, after medical evaluation, the petitioner was found to be the only compatible living donor among the family.
The Court took note of the approval granted by the appropriate authority and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, permitting the proposed donation on exceptional medical grounds. It observed that Rule 5(3)(g) does not impose an absolute prohibition on organ donation by minors but permits such donation in exceptional cases with prior approval of the competent authorities. The Court further recorded that the petitioner, being the biological son of the recipient, qualified as a “near relative” under the Act, was physically fit to donate, and had voluntarily expressed his willingness to undergo the procedure out of natural love and affection, without any element of coercion or commercial consideration.
Holding that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured permitting the transplant, the Court observed that refusal of permission could result in the loss of the petitioner’s father’s life. Accordingly, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court allowed the petition and permitted the minor to donate a part of his liver to his father. It also directed the hospital to carry out the transplantation strictly in compliance with all legal, ethical, and clinical protocols to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the minor donor.
[Pratik Shaw Minor v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 4045/2026, decided on 29-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Utkarsh Singh, Adv.
For Respondent: Siddhartha Panda, Adv, Mr. Dhananjai Rana (CGHS), Avni Singh, Panel Counsel for GNCTD and Vaibhav Sharma,Adv.
