‘Be more sensitive’: Court allows Bangladeshi mother to donate kidney to ailing son, raps panel

Justice G R Swaminathan said the endeavour of the authorisation committee should not be to reject the application but to find out the truth.

No room for ‘fanciful doubts’

• The high court directed the committee to grant permission to the mother to donate one of her kidneys to her son and insisted that it should be done immediately.
• The court highlighted that the only relevant question which the committee should have posed to itself was whether the child was the son of the donor.
• It was further added that whether the man was the husband of the woman was irrelevant.
• The court said the standard of proof cannot be placed at a high threshold.
• It added that the couple can at best produce their birth certificates, family ration cards, school certificates, etc.
• The court observed that the authorisation committee must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. There cannot be vague hunches or abstract speculation.
• A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense.
• It was added that if the documentary evidence produced by the applicants establishes the near relationship by applying one’s common sense, approval should be given.
• The court pointed out that the couple must be given every opportunity to convince the committee about the veracity of their claim.

Oral testimony

• It was emphasised that undue importance must not be given to the oral testimony as there could be language barriers.
• If the oral testimony is at variance with the documentary evidence, and the documentary evidence is in favour of the couple, it is the document that should be preferred.
• The court added that the endeavour of the committee should not be to reject the application but to find out the truth.
• It was stated that if there is no discrepancy among them and the claim put forth in the application as to relationship stands probabilised, it should be taken that the claim has been conclusively established.
• The high court noted that the donor can be a near relative or a third party.
• It was added that it is true that if the documentary evidence submitted by the applicants does not conclusively establish the near relationship between the donor and the recipient, the competent authority can take recourse to a DNA test.
• However, the court added that this move cannot be lightly or casually taken.
• The court added that when a person claims that she is the mother of so and so and it is accepted, a statutory authority will not normally be justified in rejecting the claim.

e-Apostille certificate

• The court mentioned that since the petitioners have produced the e-Apostille certificate, the documents produced by them must be treated as authenticated documents which are worthy of credence.
• The apostille certificate is a standard certification provided under the Hague Convention for authenticating documents used in foreign countries. It is acceptable in all member countries of the convention.
• It was mentioned that India is a signatory to the Hague Apostille Convention, 1961.
• The court added that the state should endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another.

Travelled from Bangladesh to Chennai

It was placed on record that the petitioners, citizens of Bangladesh, travelled to Chennai on medical visas after finding the available treatment options in their country inadequate for their minor son, who was suffering from serious kidney complications and undergoing dialysis.

The child was admitted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, where doctors diagnosed him with end-stage renal chronic kidney disease and advised a kidney transplant in November 2025.

However, owing to the political instability prevailing in Bangladesh at the time, the family could not immediately obtain the required e-Apostille certificate from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The certificate was eventually secured on February 15, 2026.

The child’s mother volunteered to donate one of her kidneys, and compatibility tests confirmed that she was a suitable donor. Since prior approval from the authorisation committee was mandatory, the family submitted the necessary application.

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

During the course of the enquiry, certain questions were posed to the parents of the child, and later their applications were rejected on the ground that the spousal relationship between the couple was not established.

The court noted that the evidence placed on record clearly indicated that the woman is the mother of the child. It was also noted that the authorisation committee did not appear to have entertained any doubt regarding this but developed doubts about the marital relationship between the couple as they have different answers on the question of the venue of their wedding.

Challenging the same, the couple filed the petition.

Arguments

Representing the petitioner, advocate N Manoharan sought quashing of the rejection order and permission for the kidney transplant.

Appearing for the state, the counsel argued that the court should take note of the fact that there is large-scale trafficking in human organs.

It was added that, therefore, the court should not ordinarily review the decision taken by the expert committee constituted for that purpose.

He further called upon the court to sustain the said order and dismiss the present petition.