Calcutta High Court overrules ‘flimsy’ reason for rejecting kidney transplant, orders life-saving surgery within 24 hours

‘Flimsy’ rejection draws rebuke

• The police verification report reveals that, on examining the donor, a man unknown to the patient, it was found that the donor wanted to give a kidney to the recipient on humanitarian grounds.
• No financial dealings in cash or kind between the donor and the recipient have been found by the police authority.
• The authorisation committee has refused the petitioner’s request on the grounds that they have submitted an invoice of 2019 that appears to be freshly prepared, manipulated and fabricated.
• The donor has given an affidavit, executed before the magistrate, stating that he is a well-wisher of the patient. He intends to donate his organ only to save the life of the patient.
• The police verification also did not find any financial transactions.

• But the authorities, in a flimsy manner, refused the request of the petitioner’s wife seeking authorisation for organ transplantation.
• This court finds that the reason why the authorities rejected the request for organ transplantation is not in accordance with the law.
• This donor has voluntarily come to donate his organ to save the life of the petitioner’s wife, being a well-wisher, and he has also affirmed the affidavit before the magistrate.
• That has also been verified through the police authorities.
• Thus, this court finds that the reason on which the authorisation committee has rejected the request of the petitioner is not sustainable under the law.

Justice Krishna Rao said the authorities’ reason for rejecting the organ transplantation request was not in accordance with the law.

Surgery in 48 hours

• Recognising the life-threatening urgency in the matter, the court issued time-bound, enforceable directions, including authorisation committee to grant approval within 24 hours.
• Hospital to perform transplant within the next 24 hours.
• No delay permitted due to weekends or holidays.
• The court also allowed the petitioner to communicate the gist of the order directly to the authorities to eliminate procedural lag.

Transplant authorities cautioned

• The ruling sends a broader institutional message: regulatory vigilance cannot become a pretext for inaction in life-and-death situations.
• Key takeaways likely to influence future cases include: altruistic donations from unrelated donors are legally valid if verified.
• Authorities must rely on objective evidence, not speculative suspicion.
• Urgency must override procedural inertia where survival is at stake.

4-year medical emergency, administrative delay

• The case centres on a 43-year-old woman who has been battling kidney failure since November 2021 and has been undergoing continuous dialysis since November 27 that year.
• Her condition reached a critical stage when Kolkata’s Belle Vue Clinic formally advised a renal transplant on May 30, 2025.
• A subsequent medical certificate warned that an “urgent renal transplantation” was necessary to save her life.
• Despite this, her case remained stuck in procedural limbo for months.
• Her name appeared in transplant board meeting lists in October 2025 and January 2026.
• No final decision was communicated.
• The family was allegedly given only an oral rejection, with no written order
• This lack of transparency ultimately forced the petitioner to move the high court.

State’s suspicion vs verified facts

• At the heart of the dispute was a familiar regulatory concern – whether the unrelated donor was acting out of altruism or financial inducement.
• The state authorisation committee rejected the application, claiming that documents submitted to establish prior acquaintance appeared ‘freshly prepared’.
• The claimed relationship between donor and recipient could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• However, the high court found that these suspicions collapsed when tested against the official record.
• A police verification report found no financial dealings.
• A sub-divisional officer’s inquiry confirmed no exchange of cash or kind.
• The donor had executed a sworn affidavit before a magistrate stating he was donating purely on humanitarian grounds.
• The donor explicitly declared that he wished to save the person’s life without any pressure or monetary consideration.

‘Suspicion elevated over verified evidence’

• Rejecting the state’s approach, the court held that the authorisation committee had misapplied the law by elevating suspicion over verified evidence.
• The court found that once voluntary intent is established through an affidavit and corroborated by police verification, rejection based on speculative doubts is “not sustainable in law.”
• The court noted that the committee ignored crucial material and instead relied on inconclusive doubts about documents, a standard not required under the governing law.