Justice GR Swaminathan thus directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to permit a mother to donate one of her kidneys to her son, who was suffering from systemic hypertension chronic kidney disease stage-V and needed urgent kidney transplantation.

by Sekar Reporter · May 22, 2026

[22/05, 18:57] sekarreporter1: Mother Can’t Be Asked To Undergo DNA Test And Prove Maternity For Donating Kidney To Son: Madras High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-mother-organ-transplant-son-no-dna-test-535316
[22/05, 18:57] sekarreporter1: menu_bar
Live Law
home-iconTop StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw SchoolsLaw FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound UpsIBC NewsEnvironmental LawCartoonsTaxArbitrationConsumer Cases
Home > High Courts > Madras High Court > Mother Can’t Be Asked To…
Mother Can’t Be Asked To Undergo DNA Test And Prove Maternity For Donating Kidney To Son: Madras High Court
By – Upasana SajeevUpdate: 2026-05-22 10:47 GMT
Mother Cant Be Asked To Undergo DNA Test And Prove Maternity For Donating Kidney To Son: Madras High Court
facebook icontwitter iconlinkedin icontubmlr iconpinterest icon
whatsapp icon
Click the Play button to listen to article
The Madras High Court has held that a mother should not be made to undergo DNA test to prove her maternity while donating kidney to her child.

The court remarked that when the donor herself was saying that the recipient was her son, it was not understandable on why the request was ignored.

“When the Donor claims that the recipient/patient is none other than her own biological son, this Court is unable to understand as to why the request of the petitioners has been casually ignored,” the court asked.
In the present case, the authorisation committee had not approved the transplant, alleging that the relationship between the donor and the recipient was not established.

The mother argued that the order was passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the documents filed and was thus arbitrary. It was also argued that while the request was rejected in the present case, similarly placed persons were granted approval and thus, the order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The parties also argued that the order had not provided any appropriate reason or any further requirement for approving the request. It was thus argued that the order was violative of principles of natural justice.

It was also submitted that the son had to undergo dialysis thrice a week, causing him severe physical pain and approving the request expeditiously would save him from the pain. Thus, arguing that there was urgency, the parties had approached the court.

The court noted that the parties had produced the birth certificate of the son, along with the Aadhaar Card and the PAN card which showed that the mother was the wife of Ratan Lal Chaurasia and the son, Rohit Kumar Chaurasia, was also shown as son of Ratan Lal Chaurasia.

Applying the principle of preponderance, the court said that it was satisfied that the Rohit was the biological son of the mother, Rita Chaurasia.

“Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the 2nd petitioner is none other than the biological son of the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the 1st petitioner should not be called upon to undergo DNA Test to prove maternity,” the court said.

The court thus directed the authorisation committee to permit the mother to donate her kidney to the son and added that the entire exercise should be done without any delay so that necessary procedures for kidney transplantation could be done. The court also directed the Additional Government Pleader to inform the Authorisation Committee about the order.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Parthasarathy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. L. S. M. Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220

Case No: WP No. 20047 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Tags:
Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan Organ Transplantation Organ Donor Recipient DNA Test Maternity
Similar News
Video Surveillance Of Village Lake Excessively Intrusive: Madras High Court Declines Installation Of CCTV To Prevent Illegal Fishing
2026-05-22 11:52 GMT
Plea In Madras High Court Seeks To Abolish Special & VIP Darshan In Temples
2026-05-21 12:18 GMT
Madras High Court Reserves Order On V Ponraj’s Anticipatory Bail Plea In FIR Over Alleged Derogatory Remarks Against TVK Women Supporters
2026-05-21 11:05 GMT
Creditors Approach Madras High Court Against Single Judge Order Allowing Release Of “Dhruva Natchathiram” Movie
2026-05-21 08:58 GMT
Madras High Court Issues Notice On PIL Alleging Electoral Corruption During TN Polls, Use Of Children By TVK To Influence Voters
2026-05-21 07:17 GMT
“Free Country, People Can Say What They Want”: Madras High Court Rejects Plea To Ban Karuppu Movie For Allegedly Showing Judiciary In Bad Light
2026-05-21 07:11 GMT
Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging Savukku Shankar’s Detention After State Revokes Goondas Act Order
2026-05-21 06:03 GMT
“Good Decision”: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging TN Govt’s Move To Close 717 TASMAC Shops
2026-05-20 12:37 GMT
Madras High Court To Examine Plea Seeking Curative Petition Against Dashwanth’s Acquittal For Rape-Murder Of 7-Year-Old Girl In 2017
2026-05-20 11:46 GMT
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Alleged Extortion Case, Orders Daily Appearance Before Police
2026-05-20 11:03 GMT
Madras High Court To Hear Tomorrow Habeas Corpus Plea Challenging Savukku Shankar’s Detention Under Goondas Act
2026-05-20 07:05 GMT
Follow:
Copyright @2025Powered by Blink CMS