Mother-In-Law Can Be Treated As A 'Near Relative' For Organ Transplantation: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Court held that even where the word “means” is used in a definition clause, it need not always be read as exhaustive.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a mother-in-law can be treated as a “near relative” under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, thereby permitting kidney swap transplants that were earlier denied on a strict interpretation of the law. The Bench remarked that in modern urban families, people have one or two children, and the list of the relatives have squeezed, and elderly members like grandparents are often medically unfit for organ donation.
The Court, relying on principles of purposive interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court, held that even where the word “means” is used in a definition clause, it need not always be read as exhaustive. Instead, the definition of “near relative” under Section 2(i) of Act must be expanded contextually to include relations like a mother-in-law, especially when such inclusion advances the legislative objective of promoting ethical organ transplantation.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal noting that the expression ‘near relative’ has been used in Section 9 as well as Rule 7 and the definition under Section 2(i) of Act, observed, “…it is evident that legislature has used expression ‘means’. The expression ‘includes’ has not been used. As expression ‘means’ has been used, the list of relatives underscored in the said definition cannot be called as exhaustive. The expression ‘means’ should be interpreted considering object of the 1994 Act as well as prevailing facts and circumstances. In the present urban population structure, most of the families are having one or two children. The list of relatives has squeezed. There are very few fortunate people who are having grandparents and in any case grandparents cannot be expected to donate their organs during their lifetime on account of ailments”.
Advocate Molly A. Lakhanpal appeared for the petitioner and Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, Sudhir Nar, Senior Panel Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The matter pertained to two writ petitions filed by patients suffering from end-stage kidney failure, both dependent on dialysis and in urgent need of transplants. While their respective family members had agreed to donate kidneys, medical incompatibility due to blood group mismatch made direct transplantation impossible. The families, unrelated to each other, opted for a swap transplant arrangement, where each donor would give a kidney to the other patient, an arrangement medically viable and potentially life-saving.
However, the Authorisation Committee rejected the proposal solely on the ground that one of the donors, a mother-in-law, did not fall within the statutory definition of “near relative” under Section 2(i) of the 1994 Act. Since Section 9(3-A) permits swap transplants only between near relatives, the application was denied.
Challenging this narrow interpretation, the petitioners argued that the definition must be read purposively in light of contemporary family structures and the object of the law. Accepting this contention, Justice Jagmohan Bansal emphasized that statutory interpretation cannot be divorced from social realities. The Court noted that modern family units are often limited, and excluding relations such as a mother-in-law would defeat the very purpose of facilitating organ donation and saving lives.
The Court further observed that the Act itself permits organ donation to non-relatives with prior approval, subject to safeguards against commercial exploitation. Therefore, a rigid interpretation that prevents voluntary, non-commercial, life-saving swaps between genuine donors would be contrary to the spirit of the law.
“Considering the prevailing family structure especially in the urban population and object of 1994 Act as well as aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds it appropriate to hold that in the definition of ‘near relative’ few more relatives should be included and mother-in-law is one of them”, it noted.
In the judgment, the Bench made a specific observation, noting that if the definition is interpreted in the manner proposed, orphans may never be able to find a donor. “The matter may be examined from another angle. Section 9(3) permits donation of organs to other than ‘near relative’. For the said purpose, approval of Authorization Committee is required. If Section 9(3-A) is interpreted in the manner as claimed by respondent, if an orphan faces situation as arising in the present case, he would not be able to get human organ from anyone. For the said reason, the Authorization Committee is empowered to approve removal of organ and transplantation into a recipient who is not a relative of the donor. It means there is no bar on transplantation of organ of a human being into non-near relative. This shows that intention of the legislature was never to prohibit voluntary and non-coercive transplantation of human organs among unrelated persons. The object of 1994 Act is to prevent misuse of organs of poor persons. There are always possibilities of abstraction of human organs of poor ones on payment of meager amount”, it noted.
Allowing the petitions, the Court directed Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) to proceed with the transplant process, subject to compliance with all medical and legal formalities.
Cause Title: Anil Kumar and others v. Union of India and another [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHC:043235]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Molly A. Lakhanpal, Advocate.
Respondent: Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, Senior Panel Counsel, Sudhir Nar, Senior Panel Counsel Payal Sharma, Advocate.