An expert committee evaluating organ transplant applications between near relatives must exclusively verify the specific relationship claimed. Rejecting an application based on collateral issues, such as parents' marital status, when the primary relationship is established by evidence, constitutes a misdirection in law and irrelevant consideration.

Order :

G. R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

The writ petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother and father of the first petitioner. They are citizens of Bangladesh. The first petitioner has renal issues and is presently on dialysis. Since medical facilities in Bangladesh were not found to be adequate, the writ petitioners have come down to Chennai on medical visas to avail better treatment.

2. The first petitioner was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The nephrologists diagnosed his condition as “end-stage renal chronic kidney disease”. He advised the first petitioner to undergo kidney transplantation in November 2025 itself. Due to unstable political conditions then prevailing in Bangladesh, the petitioners were unable to obtain what is known as the “e-Apostille certificate” from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The said certificate was obtained on 15.02.2026. The second petitioner who is the mother of the first petitioner had come forward to donate one of her kidneys. The requisite compatibility tests were undertaken and it was opined that the second petitioner can very well donate her kidney. However, for doing so, prior approval of the second respondent Authorisation Committee was required. Hence, an application was submitted before the second respondent committee.

The committee conducted enquiry with the assistance of an interpreter since the petitioners were conversant only in Bangla/Bengali.

3. During the course of the enquiry, certain questions were posed to the parents of the first petitioner and it appears that there was some miscommunication. The applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that the spousal relationship between the petitioners 2 & 3 was not established. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court should take note of the fact that there is large-scale trafficking in human organs and that, therefore, this Court should not ordinarily review the decision taken by the Expert Committee constituted for that purpose. He called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The applicable provisions are Sub-sections 1-A, 5 & 6 of Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rule 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. They read as follows:-

“9.Restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs or tissues or both (1A) Where the donor or the recipient being near relative is a foreign national, prior approval of the Authorisation Committee shall be required before removing or transplanting human organ or tissue or both:

Provided that the Authorisation Committee shall not approve such removal or transplantation if the recipient is a foreign national and the donor is an Indian national unless they are near relatives.

(5) On an application jointly made, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, by the donor and the recipien