Wed Sep 03 06:59:53 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the text followed by a rewritten version as a news article:
**Summary:**
The Madras High Court overturned a decision by an Authorisation Committee that denied permission for a kidney transplant between two individuals claiming to be family friends. The court found that the committee wrongly based its decision solely on a report from the Erode Collector, which stated the individuals couldn’t provide documentary proof of their friendship. The court emphasized that friendship doesn’t require documentation and that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act of 1994 allows for organ donation between non-near relatives, provided it’s based on love and affection and doesn’t involve financial transactions. The court instructed the Authorisation Committee to reconsider the application, focusing on whether the donation is genuinely altruistic, rather than demanding impossible documentation of friendship.
**News Article:**
**Madras High Court Questions Need for Documentary Proof of Friendship in Organ Donation Cases**
**CHENNAI, September 3, 2025** – In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an order denying permission for a kidney transplant between two individuals who claim to be family friends, questioning the necessity of documentary evidence to prove such a relationship.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh overturned the decision made by an Authorisation Committee tasked with regulating unrelated organ donations. The committee had refused the transplant between C. Ganesan (donor) of Erode and V. Periasamy (recipient) of Thanjavur, citing a report from the Erode Collector stating the pair failed to provide documents proving their friendship.
“It is incomprehensible how family friends can establish their relationship through documents,” Justice Venkatesh stated in his ruling. “Emotion plays a part in a relationship involving friends, and it is not determined through documentation. Hence, the very basis on which the report has been given by the Collector lacks sound reasoning.”
The court highlighted that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act of 1994 does not prohibit organ transplants between non-near relatives. The law mandates that such donations must be driven by love and affection, free from financial incentives or coercion, aiming to prevent exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
Justice Venkatesh emphasized that while donors and recipients must assert the absence of commercial dealing, the Authorisation Committee has a responsibility to independently assess the authenticity of the donation. The committee should determine whether it is genuinely motivated by altruism, rather than relying solely on the lack of documentary proof of a relationship.
The court criticized the committee’s reliance on the Collector’s report without independent assessment. Consequently, the June 27, 2025, order denying the renal transplant was overturned.
The court has directed the families of both the recipient and the donor to appear before the Authorisation Committee on September 4, 2025. The committee is instructed to reconsider the application and make a final decision within four weeks, adhering strictly to legal requirements. This ruling underscores the court’s emphasis on ensuring ethical organ donation practices while acknowledging the limitations of requiring formal documentation of personal relationships.
First Piper 