Chennai, Sep 3 Questioning the logic of demanding documents to establish personal friendship, the Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Authorisation Committee that had refused permission for a kidney transplant between two men who described themselves as family friends.
A bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the committee had denied approval merely on the basis of a report from the Erode Collector, which said that donor C. Ganesan of Erode and recipient V. Periasamy of Thanjavur had not produced documentary evidence to prove their friendship.
“It is incomprehensible as to how family friends can establish their relationship through documents. Emotion plays a part in a relationship involving friends, and it is not determined through documentation,” the judge said in his order, calling the Collector’s reasoning flawed.
The court pointed out that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, does not bar transplants between unrelated individuals. The law only mandates that such donations must be out of love and affection, without monetary inducement or coercion.
Its central objective, it underlined, is to prevent exploitation of vulnerable people and ensure that organ trade is not legitimised under the guise of donation.
Justice Venkatesh noted that in cases involving non-near relatives, the onus of establishing the absence of commercial dealings cannot rest solely on the donor and recipient. While they may assert that the donation is genuine, it is the duty of the Authorisation Committee to independently examine the circumstances and assess whether the donation is truly voluntary or influenced by financial gain.
"In the present case, the committee has failed to apply its mind independently and has simply relied upon the Collector’s report. This vitiates the decision," the bench said, quashing the committee’s June 27, 2025, order that denied permission for the transplant.
The judge directed the Authorisation Committee to give both parties a fresh opportunity to present their case and to deliver a reasoned decision within four weeks, based solely on legal requirements and independent assessment.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor