Madras High Court Overrules Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee, Allows Bangladeshi Mother To Donate Kidney to Son

The Madras High Court has set aside an order from the Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee that denied permission for a Bangladeshi mother to donate her kidney to her minor son. Ruling in favour of the family, Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the committee to immediately grant the necessary transplant permissions. The Court strongly criticised the committee's decision-making process, labelling its approach as legally misdirected and insensitive. “The impugned order suffers from misdirection in law and utter non-application of mind,” the Court held.

Background of the Medical Emergency

The case involves a minor Bangladeshi boy, Atanu Saha, who is suffering from end-stage chronic kidney disease. After finding the available medical facilities in Bangladesh inadequate for his complex needs, his parents travelled with him to Chennai on medical visas to seek treatment. Removing Thali Amounts to Mental Cruelty of the Highest Order, Says Madras High Court; Upholds Divorce Granted to Man.

The child was subsequently admitted to Apollo Hospitals in Chennai, where specialists advised an immediate kidney transplantation. His mother, A. Monika Rani Saha, volunteered to donate one of her kidneys. Medical compatibility tests were conducted, and hospital staff found her fully fit to proceed with the donation.

The Committee’s Rejection Grounds

The Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee rejected the family’s transplant application on April 2. The statutory body based its refusal on the grounds that the spousal relationship between the child's mother and father had not been adequately established. Following the rejection, the family moved to the Madras High Court to challenge the order. The State opposed the family's plea during proceedings, arguing that the expert committee's decisions should not ordinarily be interfered with by the judiciary. State counsel emphasised that strict scrutiny is required given the large-scale global trafficking of human organs.

Court Dismisses Irrelevant Considerations

Justice Swaminathan found that the committee had focused on an entirely irrelevant issue during its review. The Court clarified that the only legally sound question before the panel was whether the donor was the biological 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 highlighted a robust trail of identity documentation provided by the family, including:

• Passports and medical visas
• National identity cards and birth registration certificates
• A family certificate and a Form 21 relationship certificate
• A no-objection certificate from the Bangladesh Deputy High Commission in Chennai
• Blood grouping reports, psychiatric fitness reports, and a voluntary DNA report

The Court placed particular weight on an e-apostille certificate provided by the family, noting that under the Hague Apostille Convention, apostilled documents must be treated as fully legalised and authenticated in India without requiring additional attestation.

Language Barriers and Burden of Proof

The judgment criticised the committee for relying too heavily on oral answers recorded during its inquiry session. The court noted that the petitioners were native Bengali speakers who were required to navigate an official inquiry through an interpreter. “The applicants might be appearing for the very first time in an official enquiry. There could be language barriers,” the Court observed. It added that "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" Direct Evidence of S*xual Intercourse Not Needed To Prove Adultery, Says Madras High Court; Grants Divorce to Man.

Justice Swaminathan asserted that the committee’s primary mandate should be to find the truth rather than actively seek grounds to reject applications. The Court ruled that the standard of proof cannot be set unreasonably high when patients are in critical, time-sensitive need of organ transplants. “The Authorisation Committee must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. There cannot be vague hunches or abstract speculation,” the ruling stated.

Protecting the Child's Status

The Court made its strongest remarks regarding the committee's insistence on verifying the parents' marriage status. Justice Swaminathan noted that the panel should have exercised basic sensitivity before ruling that the relationship between the parents was unestablished. The Court added, “They have virtually stigmatised the first petitioner who is a minor child." Concluding that the available records overwhelmingly established the biological maternal relationship, the High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the immediate clearance of the transplant procedures.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 03, 2026 03:32 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).