Non-relative status alone cannot bar kidney donation, Madras High Court says, ordering fresh review of request

The petitioner, who was suffering from a kidney ailment, sought approval for a kidney transplant from Umarani, a proposed donor who was not his “near relative” and was stated to be his friend and employee.

The Tahsildar rejected the request in proceedings dated 31 August 2026, principally because the donor and recipient were not near relatives.

The petitioner challenged that report and sought consideration of his representation dated 26 August 2026 under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (“the Act”).

Whether a proposed donor’s failure to qualify as a “near relative” under Section 2(i) of the Act is, by itself, a bar to donation.

Whether the rejection could stand without consideration of the procedure and safeguards applicable under Section 9(3) of the Act and the Rules.

Section 2(i) of the Act defines “near relative”; however, the statutory scheme under Section 9(3) and the Rules permits consideration of a transplant proposal involving a donor who is not a near relative, subject to the competent Authorisation Committee’s satisfaction and the prescribed safeguards.

Such a proposal requires scrutiny of the donation’s genuineness and voluntariness, the donor-recipient relationship, and the absence of commercial consideration; non-relative status alone is not an absolute disqualification.

The Court also relied on Sudha Mathesan and Balamani Sabapathi v. The Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), W.P. Nos. 13918, 13922, 13967 and 13969 of 2024, decided 30 May 2024, concerning the application of Section 9(3) and the relevant Rules.

The Tahsildar’s report treated the donor’s non-relative status as a principal ground for rejection, without considering the statutory route for scrutiny of non-relative donations under Section 9(3).

The donor’s employment under the petitioner could warrant inquiry, but the report identified no specific supporting material establishing a commercial transaction or monetary consideration; that circumstance therefore could not operate as an automatic disqualification.

The request required fresh consideration by the competent Authorisation Committee, with the prescribed inquiry and safeguards.

The Committee must conduct any necessary inquiry, consider the parties’ materials, afford the petitioner and proposed donor an opportunity to provide documents and credentials, and issue a reasoned order preferably within seven days of receiving the order.

The Court expressed no view on whether the transplant should ultimately be approved.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.