Mother’s claim to child should not be casually doubted: Madras HC on organ donation

WHile scope apart an dictate that denied permission for a east pakistani adult female to donate a kidney to her minor son, the Madras High Court said that “a mother’s claim to her child should not be casually doubted”.In an order passed last week, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court found fault with the approach adopted by the Tamil Nadu Authorisation Committee, which regulates living donor organ transplants to prevent commercial dealings.The committee had rejected a Bangladeshi family’s application for a kidney transplant after concluding that the marital relationship between the child’s parents had not been established.Justice Swaminathan said that one must keep in mind the special significance that is attached to the mother-child relationship, and that authorities should not casually disbelieve a woman’s claim that she is a child’s mother.Also Read: Chandigarh: 44-year-old brain-dead Haryana man saves five lives“Mother is assigned a sacred position in Bharatiya culture. 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,” the court said.It then directed the committee to immediately grant approval for the transplant.The court was hearing a petition filed by the mother of the Bangladeshi minor, who was suffering from end-stage chronic kidney disease and had been undergoing dialysis. The child and his parents had travelled 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 her suitable for donation.However, the Authorisation Committee rejected the application after noting discrepancies in the parents’ answers during an enquiry regarding where their wedding had taken place.The court held that the committee had focused on an “irrelevant consideration.” The only issue before it was whether the donor was the recipient’s mother, Justice Swaminathan said, adding that the committee should not have concerned itself with whether the parents had adequately proved their marriage.“The only relevant question which the committee should have posed to itself was whether the first petitioner was the son of the second petitioner,” the court said.It added that authorisation committees are not expected to apply rigid legal standards of proof and should instead adopt a commonsense approach when assessing documents submitted by applicants. Once authorities satisfy themselves that the documents are genuine, they must consider them collectively and avoid entertaining “fanciful doubts,” vague suspicions or speculative concerns, the court said.Justice Swaminathan also cautioned against placing undue reliance on oral testimony, particularly when applicants face language barriers or appear before an official body for the first time. If documentary evidence supports the claimed relationship, authorities should prefer it over minor inconsistencies in verbal responses, he said.The court noted that the family had produced several documents, including birth records, identity documents, a marriage certificate, a DNA report and apostilled records from Bangladesh. It held that these documents clearly established the mother-son relationship.Calling the committee’s decision a case of “misdirection in law” and “utter non-application of mind,” the court quashed the committee’s rejection order and directed immediate approval for the kidney donation.