A kidney transplant from a driver’s wife to her husband’s employer was refused over a licence date. The Calcutta High Court has set that refusal aside, holding that a non-relative donation motivated by affection is permitted.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolkata: Quashing the rejection of a proposed kidney transplant from a driver’s wife to the employer who suffers from chronic kidney disease, the Calcutta High Court has sent the request back to the State Level Authorization Committee, which must reconsider it and decide within two weeks [Ranjeet Kumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Others].
The writ petition was allowed by Justice Krishna Rao.
Why the Committee said no
The petitioner has chronic kidney disease and wanted approval for a transplant from the wife of his driver, who is not a near relative. Medical tests found the donor compatible, and a police inquiry turned up no financial transaction and no middleman.
The Committee still rejected the proposal, pointing to discrepancies in the driver’s employment history: his licence was issued on February 27, 2024, though he claimed to have worked for the petitioner since 2021. The donor said that her decision rested on affection and familiarity built over three to four years.
Where the Court disagreed
In the Court’s view, the rejection did not square with the statute. Section 9(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, it noted, allows transplantation involving a non-near-relative donor where the donation is motivated by affection, attachment or other special reasons, subject to prior approval. As to the burden on applicants, it said:
Too much of burden cannot be laid on the shoulders of the applicants, unless there is definite material to establish that there are financial dealing involving the parties.
A fresh decision in two weeks
Where donors assert an altruistic motive, the Court held, that assertion should not be doubted without credible reasons, and the donor here had given credible ones. Its order reads:
The decision taken by the Authorization Committee is set aside and quashed. The State Level Authorization Committee is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner and to take appropriate decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
What the order settles, and what it leaves open
A donor who is not a relative is not barred from donating where affection or attachment is the reason, and authorisation committees must look for definite material of a financial dealing instead of acting on suspicion. Peripheral discrepancies, such as the date of a driver’s licence, do not by themselves defeat an application where the police inquiry found no transaction or middleman.
The Court did not itself grant approval. That decision rests with the Committee, which now has two weeks.
Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Others [W.P.A. No. 20086 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Krishna Rao, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Pingal Bhattacharyya and Rajdeep Sinha for the petitioner; Siddartha Goswami and Argha Chatterjee for the State.