Chandigarh: Expanding the interpretation of “near relative” under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, Punjab and Haryana high court has allowed a mother-in-law to be considered eligible in a kidney swap case.In the present urban population structure, most families have one or two children, HC noted. “The list of relatives has shrunk. There are very few fortunate people who have grandparents and, in any case, grandparents cannot be expected to donate their organs during their lifetime on account of ailments,” the bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal said in its order while hearing a petition filed by Anil Kumar and others.HC recorded that the expression “near relative” has been defined in the Act as “spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson or granddaughter.”“It is evident that the legislature has used the expression ‘means’. The expression ‘includes’ has not been used. As ‘means’ has been used, the list of relatives underscored in the said definition cannot be treated as exhaustive. The expression ‘means’ should be interpreted considering the object of the 1994 Act as well as prevailing facts and circumstances,” Justice Bansal observed in his order.HC further noted that if the statute is interpreted in the manner suggested by the Centre, an orphan would not be able to receive an organ from anyone. For this reason, the Authorization Committee is empowered to approve removal and transplantation of organs even when the donor is not a near relative. This indicates that there is no absolute bar on transplantation between unrelated persons, the court said, emphasising that the legislative intent was never to prohibit voluntary and non-coercive organ donation among unrelated individuals, but rather to prevent commercial exploitation, particularly of economically vulnerable persons.Petitioner No. 1 Anil Kumar and petitioner No. 2 Harjit Singh, were suffering from kidney ailments and had approached Chandigarh’s Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) for treatment. They were advised to undergo kidney transplantation as both their kidneys had become dysfunctional.They attempted to find donors but it turned out that their only viable option was a kidney swap. Kumar’s mother-in-law, Meena Devi, and Singh’s wife agreed to donate. The two families were unrelated.The matter was placed before the Authorization Committee, which rejected the request on the ground that a mother-in-law does not fall within the definition of “near relative.” Both petitioners, who were on dialysis due to kidney failure, were undergoing significant physical and mental hardship.The committee reiterated that under Section 2(i) of the 1994 Act, only specified relations qualify as “near relatives,” and under Section 9(3-A), swap donations are permissible only when donors fall within that category. Since a mother-in-law was not included, the swap was disallowed.The families moved HC. During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the definition of “near relative” should not be interpreted narrowly and must be given a purposive interpretation in line with present societal realities. Opposing the plea, central govt submitted that the Authorization Committee was bound by the statutory framework and had rightly rejected the petitioners’ claim.After hearing all parties, the bench held that a mother-in-law should be considered a “near relative” for the purpose of swap donations under Section 9(3-A). The court directed PGIMER to proceed with the transplantation process, subject to compliance with all legal and medical formalities.
