While the Madras High Court overturned an order denying permission to a Bangladeshi woman to donate a kidney to her minor son, it said that “a mother’s right to her child should not be questioned casually.”
In an order issued last week, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court found fault with the approach adopted by the Tamil Nadu Authorization Commission, which regulates organ transplants from living donors to prevent commercial dealings.
The committee had rejected a Bangladeshi family’s request to undergo a kidney transplant after concluding that the marital relationship between the child’s parents had not been proven.
Justice Swaminathan said that one must keep in mind the special importance attached to the relationship between mother and child, and that authorities should not casually believe a woman’s claim that she is the mother of a child.
Read also: Chandigarh: A 44-year-old Haryana man who was brain dead saves the lives of five people
“Mother has a sacred place in Bharatiya culture. When someone claims to be so-and-so’s mother and that is accepted, the legal authority would not normally be justified in rejecting that claim,” the court said.
The committee then directed immediate approval for the transplant procedure.
The court was hearing a petition submitted by the mother of the Bangladeshi minor, who was suffering from chronic kidney disease in its final stages and was undergoing dialysis. The child and his parents had traveled to Chennai on medical visas after doctors advised a kidney transplant. The boy’s mother volunteered to donate one of her kidneys, and compatibility tests found that she was suitable for donation.
However, the authorization committee rejected the request after noticing discrepancies in the parents’ answers during the investigation regarding the location of their wedding.
The court held that the Commission focused on an “irrelevant consideration.” Justice Swaminathan said the only issue at hand was whether the donor was the recipient’s mother, adding that the committee should not be concerned with whether the parents had sufficiently proven their marriage.
“The only relevant question that the committee should have asked itself is whether the first petitioner is the son of the second petitioner,” the court said.
She added that licensing committees are not expected to apply strict legal standards of proof, and should instead adopt a logical approach when evaluating documents submitted by applicants. The court said that once the authorities are sure that the documents are genuine, they must consider them collectively and avoid raising “fanciful doubts,” vague doubts or speculative fears.
Justice Swaminathan also warned against undue reliance on oral testimony, especially when applicants face language barriers or are appearing before an official body for the first time. He said that if documentary evidence supports the alleged relationship, authorities should prefer it over minor discrepancies in verbal responses.
The court noted that the family submitted several documents, including birth records, identity documents, marriage certificate, DNA report, and records returned from Bangladesh. She considered that these documents clearly demonstrated the relationship between mother and son.
The court described the committee’s decision as a case of “misrepresentation of the law” and “absolute lack of application of reason,” and overturned the committee’s rejection decision and ordered the immediate approval of the kidney donation.
