SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
TABA TANIA – Appellant
Versus
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN – Respondent
W.M.P.No.45318 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: John Zachariah
For the Respondents: E. Sundaram

For kidney transplant between near relatives, the competent authority (head of hospital) evaluates donor fitness; the Authorisation Committee has no jurisdiction unless the donor or recipient is a foreign national or the donor is not a near relative.

Headnote:(A) Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - Section 9(3), (3-A), (4), (5), (6) - Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 - Rules 2(c), 11, 18, 19 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Role of Authorisation Committee vis-à-vis Competent Authority - For transplantation between near relatives (genetically related as per Rule 18), the evaluation of donor fitness is to be done by the competent authority (Head of the hospital or committee constituted by the Head) and not by the Authorisation Committee - Only in cases where the donor or recipient is a foreign national or where the donor is not a near relative does the Authorisation Committee have jurisdiction - Rule 18 read with Section 9(4) of the Act makes it clear that the Authorisation Committee's approval is not required when the proposed transplant is between near relatives - The impugned order passed by the first respondent (Authorisation Committee) rejecting the donor on the ground of medical unfitness was without jurisdiction as the competent authority and the medical team had already certified the donor fit. (Paras 6-15)

(B) Jurisdiction - Authorisation Committee cannot override the assessment of the competent authority when the transplant is between near relatives - The High Court directed the second respondent/hospital to reassess the donor comprehensively and, if satisfied, to proceed with the transplantation. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a daily wager suffering from renal failure, was advised a kidney transplant. His mother (aged 69) volunteered as a donor. The second respondent/hospital and the Authorisation Committee of Arunachal Pradesh certified the donor fit. However, the first respondent (Authorisation Committee of Tamil Nadu) passed an order dated 03.10.2025 declaring the donor unfit due to high cardiac risk and age. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules mandates that for near relatives, the competent authority (head of hospital) evaluates fitness. The Authorisation Committee's role under Section 9 (including sub-sections (3) and (3-A)) is limited to non-near relatives or foreign nationals. Since the donor and recipient are near relatives (mother and son) and both are Indian citizens, the Authorisation Committee had no jurisdiction to reject the donor's fitness. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the Authorisation Committee has the authority to assess donor fitness in a transplant between near relatives? (ii) What is the correct interpretation of Rules 18 and 19 read with Section 9 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: The competent authority (defined under Rule 2(c)) alone has the power to evaluate the fitness of a donor when the proposed transplant is between near relatives (as defined in Rule 18). The Authorisation Committee's approval is required only in cases where the donor or recipient is a foreign national or where the donor is not a near relative (Rule 19 and Section 9(3)).

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the second respondent/hospital to reassess the donor comprehensively and, if satisfied, to proceed with the transplantation. No costs.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 passed in K.Dis.No.86353/H&DII/4/2025 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo renal transplant operation at Kovai Medical Centre & Hospital Limited, second respondent herein, by receiving the organ from his mother/donor Taba Maloti, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the daily wager, his wife is a homemaker and blessed with a male child, aged about three years; he is diagnosed with renal problem in 2025; as his condition worsened, he consulted a nephrologist at home town in Arunachal Pradesh, who, in turn, referred him to Kovai Medical Centre & Hospital Limited, second respondent herein and the second respondent/hospital advised kidney transplant; as his condition was bad, he was put on hemodialysis and as his condition progressively worsened and the problem has become serious, he was advised to undergo transplant immediately; at that time, his mother, out of her love and affection, had come forward to donate one of her kidneys and she is also medically fit to donate same, which has been approved by the Authorisation Committee in Arunachal Pradesh; no objection certificate has also been issued by the Authorisation Committee in this regard from Arunachal Pradesh; the second respondent/hospital also issued a certificate after examining his mother by stating that the donor is fit for surgery; when the transplant was about to be done as per the procedure under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”), his mother was referred to the Authorisation Committee constituted by the State of Tamil Nadu; after examination, the impugned order came to be passed, as if, his mother is unfit to undergo surgery and hence, according to him, the impugned order is against the very Act itself.

3. When the medical officers, who is going to perform the transplant and the experts in the field have opined that the donor is fit for surgery and transplant can be done easily, taking contrary view on the basis of the appearance is not correct. Further, the Authorisation Committee of Arunachala Pradesh has also examined and certified that the petitioner’s mother is fit for surgery and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's mother was medically examined by a team of doctors and found that since she is aged about 69 years, she is not fit to donate kidney under high cardiac risk. He would further submit that the medical officer examined the petitioner’s mother physically and found that she is not fit for being a renal donor in high risk category and only on that ground permission was rejected by the Authorisation Committee. Further, according to him, guidelines issued under Rule 23 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (for brevity “the Rules”) has been followed properly and fitness of the donor has been assessed.

5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials on records.

6. The relationship between the donor and donee is not in dispute. The petitioner is suffering from renal failure and he is admitted in the second respondent/hospital. The second respondent/hospital has also given certificate to the effect that the petitioner’s mother/donor is fit for such surgery. The said certificate is also annexed in this petition. Similarly, the Authorisation Committee of Arunachal Pradesh State Government has also assessed the conditions of the donor and donee and had given a certificate dated 24.06.2025, which is also annexed in the typed set.

7. It is relevant to note that as per Rule 18 of the Rules, where, the proposed transplant of organs is between near relatives related genetically, namely, grandmother, grandfather, mother, father, brother, sis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top