Justice Mini Pushkarna, Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has permitted a 17-year-old boy to donate a part of his liver to his father, holding that the case falls within the exceptional medical grounds contemplated under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014.

The writ petition filed by the minor through his mother and natural guardian, seeking permission under Section 9(1B) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and Rule 5(3)(g) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 to donate a portion of his liver to his ailing father.

A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held, “this Court is of the view that the balance of convenience and equities, in the present case, overwhelmingly lie in favour of permitting the proposed liver donation and transplantation. In case, this Court denies such permission, it may lead to loss of life of the petitioner’s father. ”

Advocate Utkarsh Singh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Siddhartha Panda appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner, born on September 13, 2008, was about 17 years and six months old at the time of filing the petition. He approached the Court expressing his willingness to donate a part of his liver to save the life of his father who is undergoing treatment at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS), Vasant Kunj, for chronic liver disease with cirrhosis, portal hypertension, mild ascites and hepatocellular carcinoma.

During the hearing, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi produced a letter dated June 29, 2026, recording the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the Appropriate Authority permitting the proposed liver donation.

The Court noted that Rule 5(3)(g) of the 2014 Rules provides that living organ or tissue donation by minors is not permitted except on exceptional medical grounds to be recorded in detail with full justification and with prior approval of the Appropriate Authority and the State Government.

The Court observed that while there is no absolute statutory bar on living organ donation by a minor, "adherence to statutory framework, i.e., the conditions as stipulated in the THO Act as well as THO Rules, which regulate the donation of living organs and tissues by minors, have to be rigorously met."

The Court noted that the petitioner's father was suffering from advanced chronic liver disease with hepatocellular carcinoma and had been advised liver transplantation as the only viable and life-saving treatment.

The Court further recorded that suitable living donors among the patient's near relatives and family members had been evaluated, and that the petitioner, being the biological son, was found to be the only suitable donor available.

The High Court also noted that the petitioner qualified as a "near relative" under Section 2(i) of the THO Act.

Recording that the minor was physically fit and willing to donate a portion of his liver to his father out of his own volition, natural love and affection, the Court observed that the proposed donation was "purely out of filial obligation, without any commercial or coercive element."

The Court held that there was no impediment in allowing the present petition, noting that similar orders had been passed by the Court on earlier occasions after considering the facts and circumstances of individual cases.

The Court further observed that denial of permission may lead to loss of life of the petitioner's father.

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court permitted the minor to donate a part of his liver to his father.

The Court was informed by ILBS that the hospital had been awaiting the Court's order and would now expeditiously fix a date for the transplant surgery.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the procedure involving the minor donor be carried out in compliance with all legal, ethical and clinical protocols to ensure his health and safety.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Cause Title: Pratik Shaw (Minor through his Mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Vandana Shaw) v. Union of India & Ors., [2026:DHC:5187]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Utkarsh Singh

Respondents: Advocate Siddhartha Panda, Dhananjai Rana (CGHS), Advocates Avni Singh with Vaibhav Sharma

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: