Mother-in-Law Qualifies as ‘Near Relative’ for Kidney Swap: P&H High Court Allows Transplant

Case Name: Anil Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. & Md. Shamim Akhtar Didar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 19 March 2026

Citation: CWP-33455-2025 & CWP-38231-2025

Bench: Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the expression “near relative” under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 must be interpreted purposively and is not exhaustive. A mother-in-law can be treated as a “near relative” for the purpose of swap kidney transplantation under Section 9(3-A).

Summary: The petitioners approached the High Court seeking permission for swap kidney transplantation. Both petitioners were suffering from end-stage renal disease and required urgent kidney transplants. Their respective willing donors—mother-in-law in one case and wife in another—were medically incompatible due to blood group mismatch. The families, being unrelated, agreed to a donor swap arrangement.

The Authorization Committee rejected the request on the ground that the donor (mother-in-law) did not fall within the definition of “near relative” under Section 2(i) of the 1994 Act, and therefore swap transplantation under Section 9(3-A) was impermissible.

Before the Court, the Union of India argued that the statutory definition is binding and restricts swap donation only to “near relatives” as expressly defined. The petitioners, however, contended that the definition should be interpreted purposively, keeping in view modern family structures and the object of the legislation.

The Court examined the statutory framework and noted that the term “near relative” is defined using the word “means”, but such definition cannot always be treated as exhaustive. Relying on principles of purposive interpretation and precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court held that definitions must be construed in light of the object of the statute and prevailing social realities.

The Court observed that modern family structures are shrinking and limiting the definition strictly would defeat the object of the Act, which is to facilitate genuine organ donation while preventing commercial exploitation. It further noted that even donation to non-near relatives is permissible under Section 9(3), subject to safeguards, indicating that the legislative intent is not to prohibit genuine donations.

Applying these principles, the Court held that a mother-in-law should be included within the ambit of “near relative” for the purpose of swap transplantation. It also observed that there was no material suggesting any commercial transaction or illegality in the proposed donation.

Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed PGIMER to proceed with the kidney transplant process, subject to compliance with all legal and medical requirements.