Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sunita Khara vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
W.P.A. No. 14608 of 2026
Sunita Khara
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Aritra Basu
Ms. Maitree Roy
....For the petitioner.
Mr. Falguni Bandyapadhyay
Mr. Rohit Banerjee
Ms. Riya Ballab
....For the State.
Mr. Saurendra Betal
....For the Respondent No.7.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal
....For the Respondent No.8.
Hearing Concluded On : 22.07.2026
Judgment Delivered On : 30.07.2026
Judgment Uploaded On : 30.07.2026
2
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction
upon the respondent no.6 and the Authorization Committee,
Government of West Bengal, to immediately consider and grant
necessary approval for the renal transplantation of the petitioner’s
husband, who has been diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease and is
in urgent need of a kidney transplant.
2. The petitioner’s husband, namely, Chintu Khanra, who is aged about
48 years, and is suffering from End Stage Renal Disease and is bed-
ridden. The husband of the petitioner was clinically examined by the
doctors of Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac
Sciences (hereinafter referred to as “R.N. Tagore Hospital”), a unit of
Narayana Health Multispecialty Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and issued a
certificate advising Kidney Transplant as a definitive treatment for the
renal disease of the patient.
3. The respondent no.7, Rupa Saha, being a family friend of the husband
of the petitioner voluntarily agreed to donate one kidney to the husband
of the petitioner out of her natural love and affection on humanitarian
ground. The petitioner’s husband filed an application in Form No.11
along with all necessary documents for Approval of Transplantation
from Living Donor duly signed by the prospective donor and recipient.
4. Mr. Aritra Basu, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits
that the donor and her guardian, i.e. her father, have also executed an
3
affidavit before the Learned 1st Class Judicial Magistrate affirming that
the respondent no. 7 is donating her kidney to the husband of the
petitioner out of compassion, without any pressure or financial
consideration, solely to save a needy person.
5. Mr. Basu submits that pursuant to the notice dated 5th June, 2026, the
petitioner along with the proposed donor and donor’s guardian
appeared before the Organ Transplantation Authorization Board on 9 th
June, 2026, with all relevant documents but it was informed to the
petitioner verbally that the case of the husband of the petitioner is not
recommended for kidney transplantation.
6. Mr. Basu submits that the respondent authorities without assigning
any reasons refused the request of the husband of the petitioner for
kidney transplantation. He submits that the husband of the petitioner
has submitted all required documents along with an affidavit of the
proposed donor and her guardian but the respondent authorities
without assigning any reason not recommended the case of the
petitioner for kidney transplantation.
7. Mr. Basu has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Niraj Kumar Sonthalia Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. in
WPA No. 5037 of 2026 dated 6th March, 2026, wherein this Court
held that the donor has voluntarily come to donate his organ to save
the life of the wife of the petitioner being the well-wisher and also
4
affirmed an affidavit before the Learned Magistrate and also verified by
the police authorities.
8. Mr. Basu has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sudha
Mathesan and Another Vs. Authorization Committee
(Transplantation), rep. by its Chairman and Another reported in
2024 SCC OnLine Mad 1633 and submits that unless there is definite
material to establish that there are financial dealings involving the
parties, permission ought not to be withheld or rejected. If the donor
states that out of love and affection, she is making donation, in the
absence of any credible reason, the averment should not be doubted.
9. Mr. Basu has relied upon the judgment in the case of V. Periasamy Vs.
The Chairman, Office of the Chairman Organization Committee,
Directorate of Medical Education and Ors. reported in
MANU/TN/3743/2025 and submits that it is incomprehensible as to
how the family friends can establish their relationship through
documents. Emotion plays a part in a relationship involving friends and
it is not determined through documentation.
10. Mr. Basu has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ratnakar
Peddada and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Others reported in
MANU/HY/0103/2018 and submits that the Authorization Committee
has to inquire whether there has been a commercial transaction
between the donor and the recipient. If the result of the inquiry is in the
5
negative, then evaluating the evidence on record, it has to grant
approval for transplantation.
11. Mr. Basu has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Singh
and Another Vs. State of T.N. and Others reported in (2005) 11 SCC
122 and submits that the Committee shall be in a better position to
ascertain the true intent and the purpose for the authorization to
remove the organ and whether any commercial element is involved or
not.
12. Mr. Falguni Bandyapadhya, Learned Advocate, representing the State
submits that two member verification committee has been constituted
in order to support and assist the functioning of the Authorization
Committee with additional input and information under the
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The proposal
for permission of renal transplantation of the husband of the petitioner
was submitted on 29th October, 2025. The verification committee
submitted report along with police report after examination of the donor
and her guardian. On receipt of verification report, the authorization
committee did not find any special reason for willingness of the donor
to donate one of her kidney to the recipient and have not recommended
for organ transplantation.
13. The verification committee after examination of the petitioner, donor
and her guardian, had submitted report on 15th May, 2026, which
reads follows:
6
1) Whether there is any commercial Nothing Established
transaction between the donor
and recipient
2) Whether any pecuniary promises Nothing Established
have been made to the donor or
any other person for this organ
donation.
3) Nature of link between non- As per verbal statement
related donors and recipients. husband of the donor
Worked as a driver but he is
missing since January
2025. GD has been done by
the donor.
4) How donor come to contact of As per verbal statement
recipient husband of the donor
Worked as a driver but he is
missing since January
2025. GD has been done by
the donor.
5) Documentary evidence of the link, Not submitted any
if any Documents
6) Reason why the donor desires to Humanitarian Ground
donate
7) Identity photograph showing the Yes
donor and recipient together
8) Whether there is any middle Nothing established
men/tout involved
9) Financial status of the donor and Donor- Monthly Income -
recipient 6,000/- (Six Thousand)
Recipient-Monthly Income -
75,000/- (Seventy-Five
Thousand)
Legal Guardian of Donor-
Monthly Income - 2,000/-
(Two Thousand)
10) Whether donor is a drug addict No
7
11) Profile verification report Receiver by Deputy -
Superintendent of Police,
DIB Barasat Police District.
Ref-memo. No.-DC-329/DIB
BST PD, Date-31/01/2026
12) Interview report of the next of the Next of the kin is aware
kin of the proposed non-related
donor regarding the awareness
about his intention to donor, the
authenticity of the link between
the donor and the donor and the
recipient and the reason for
donationIt is not clear how both the parties came in contact and
became family friend or Driver. No documentary evidence or
any photograph was produced. Hence link between both the
parties could not be ascertained. Hence not Recommended.”
14. The police authority has submitted report which reads as follows:
“Barasat P.D.
Ref: Memo No – DC-779, dated- 15.01.2026.
Sub: Verification report of authentication
of antecedent of Recipient Mr. Chintu
Khanra and donor Mrs. Rupa Saha
(39 years) and legal guardian her
father Mr. Dilip Saha of the donor of
human organ.
Respected Sir,
With due respect, I beg to informed you that as
per your kind order I have enquired the matter.
During enquiry I had been to the Vill – East
Kamarthuba, P.O + P.S- Habra, North 24 Parganas,
Pin – 743263. to enquired the matter physically.
During enquiry it is revealed that:
1) There is no blood relation with the donor
and recipient could be established.
8
2) No possibility of official dealing could be
established.
3) Nothing could be established.
This is for your kind information.
Yours faithfully
SI Sujit Dewan
DIO Habra”
15. This Court has called for the video recording of the verification
committee wherein the verification committee examined the wife of the
recipient, the donor and her guardian. In the report submitted by the
verification committee at Serial Nos. 3 and 4, it is recorded that “As per
verbal statement husband of the donor worked as a driver but he is
missing since January 2025. G.D. has been done by the donor”.
This Court perused the recording of the verification committee
wherein several questions were put to the proposed donor. The
verbatim of the statement of the donor is as follows:
“1) Where this Kidney transplant is going to take
place?
Answer:- R.N. Tagore, under Dr. Deepak Shankar
Ray. (Answered by the wife of the
recipient)
 Answered by Rupa Saha:
2) Who is Rupa Saha?
Answer:- I am, Sir
3) Where is Rupa Saha residing?
Answer:- Habra
9
4) Is the recipient’s house at Belur, Howrah?
Answer:- Yes.
5) How do you know the recipient?
Answer:- Through my husband, since my husband
used to work under the recipient as their
driver since the year 2014-2015.
6) What does your husband do now?
Answer:- No, He’s not working currently…..
7) If his is not working, how is he able to feed
himself and his family?
Answer:- He has worked for a longtime, that’s why
we have some savings (unclear words).
8) How much have recipient and his family, offered
to pay for kidney donation?
Answer:-They haven’t paid anything at all, and I
also haven’t asked for any money, since
money is not the main purpose of life and
there has been no involvement of money in
this matter. If you come to my house you can
see that I am the only child of my father, and
my father owns a two-storied building on
three cottahs of land. My father also has a
shop as well. I am financially independent. I
have a job and I own a house.
9) So, if not money, have they offered anything else
in return of the donation?
Answer:- No. I am a follower of Shri Premanand
Maharaj, he’s also suffering from kidney
issues and many of his followers has offered
to donate kidney to him, but he has refused.
So, I take him as my inspiration and I want to
help someone.
10) Where’s your husband now?
Answer:- I don’t know. He’s missing.
11) Since when he’s missing?
10
Answer:- since 4th January, 2025.
12) Whether any report has been lodged before the
concerned police station regarding the missing
of your husband?
Answer:- Yes, at Habra Police Station. Several
communications have also taken place
between the concerned police station and me.
13) Do you have any children?
Answer:- Yes, I have a son, who’s currently
studying in class 7.
14) How do you manage your family’s expenses?
Answer:- I work a casual job in the Municipality, I
also do home delivery services and I run my
small jewelry business.
15) How did you get to know the recipient and his
family?
Answer:- Since my husband used to work there,
we have visited their house on multiple
occasions, as well as they have come to visit
my house including the time of my “Griha
Pravesh Puja”.
16) Is there any documentary evidence to prove the
good relations between the recipient and his
family, and you?
Answer:- No, there isn’t any documentary evidence
to prove such relation. It is just the fact that
the recipient and his family have visited my
house on multiple occasions.
17) Why did you agree to donate a kidney? Are you
aware that donating one kidney can be life-
threatening in certain situations and may also
lead to increased expenses if your health
deteriorates and there are associated health
risks?
Answer:- I have consulted with the doctors and I
am aware of every risk. Firstly, when I met
with the wife of the recipient, she had shared
11
that her husband is suffering and is in dire
need of a kidney transplant, and as such they
have advertised in all the news papers as
well. Afterwards, I myself decided and
volunteered and since my blood group is also
O+, is there any possibility if I donate a
kidney. Thereafter, the wife of the recipient,
me and my father, had discussed with the
doctors and the doctors advised that donating
one kidney will not be a problem and it will
also save somebody’s life.
18) The doctor present here today is pointing out
himself that it will be a life-risk if you agree to
donate a kidney, you are a single mother, and
you also have a young son who’s now
studying in class 7, and your father is also
quiet old. So, in case if you fall sick, who will
take care of him? I, myself is a doctor, and I
am explaining it to you that donating a kidney
may be life-threatening and anything can
happen to you while you are in the operation
theatre, are you aware that you will be given
anesthesia and several other medications?
Answer:- Yes
19) What is your name? (Question asked to the
donor’s father)
Answer:- Dilip Saha.
19) Are you also aware of the risks being taken by
your daughter? Why are you agreeing for your
daughter to face such danger? (Question
asked to the donor’s father)
Answer:- I am aware of every risk. This is not a
danger, this is a help.
 Answered by Rupa Saha:
20) Have you submitted your photograph?
Answer:- Yes, along with all the details.
21) Have you submitted your income certificate?
12
Answer:- Yes.
22) Do you take any medication?
Answer: No, I don’t.
23) Do you know anyone who introduced you to
the family of the recipient considering their
crisis?
Answer:- No.
24) Being her father, are you aware that the act of
your daughter involves life risk, and that she
may also die inside the operation theatre?
(Question asked to the donor’s father)
Answer:- Yes. I think it’s her fate. If her fate
permits she will be absolutely fine and if not
she might die. She’s trying to save
somebody’s life and I think it’s a great deed.”
16. It is admitted that the donor is not a near relative of the recipient. The
donor and recipient are unrelated to each other but it is the case of
both the parties that they are family friends. The donor and her
guardian have executed an affidavit before the Learned 1st Class
Judicial Magistrate. In the affidavit of donor, it is stated that “She is
donating her kidney to the recipient out of compassion, without any
pressure or financial consideration, solely to save a needy person”. The
guardian of the donor has stated that “He has no objection if his
daughter donates her kidney to the recipient”.
17. Section 2(f) defines Donor and 2(i) of the Transplantation of Human
Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, defines near relative which reads as
follows:
13
“2(f) “donor means any person, not less than
eighteen years of age, who voluntarily authorizes
the removal of any of his [human organs or tissues
or both] for therapeutic purposes under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) of section 3;
2(i) [“near relative” means spouse, son,
daughter, father, mother, brother, sister,
grandfather, grandmother, grandson or
granddaughter;]”
18. Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act,
1994, provides restrictions on removal and transplantation of human
organs or tissues or both. In the present case, Sub-Section (3) of
Section 9 is relevant, which reads as follows:
“9. (3) If any donor authorises the removal of
any of his [human organs or tissues or both] before
his death under sub-section (1) of section 3 for
transplantation into the body of such recipient, not
being a near relative, as is specified by the donor
by reasons of affection or attachment towards the
recipient or for any other special reasons, such
[human organ or tissue or both] shall not be
removed and transplanted without the prior
approval of the Authorisation Committee.”
19. As per Act of 1994, there is no restriction for donation of kidney in
favour of a person who is not a near relative but the only restriction is
that transplantation can be done only after prior approval of the State
Authorization Committee.
20. Rule 7 defines “Authorization Committee”. In the present, case Sub-
Rule (3) of Rule 7 is relevant, which reads as follows:
“7. Authorisation Committee. –
14
(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient
are not near relatives, the Authorisation Committee
shall,-
(i) evaluate that there is no commercial
transaction between the recipient and
the donor and that no payment has
been made to the donor or promised to
be made to the donor or any other
person;
(ii) prepare an explanation of the link
between them and the circumstances
which led to the offer being made;
(iii) examine the reasons why the donor
wishes to donate;
(iv) examine the documentary evidence of
the link, e.g. proof that they have lived
together, etc.;
(v) examine old photographs showing the
donor and the recipient together; (vi)
evaluate that there is no middleman or
tout involved;
(vi) evaluate that financial status of the
donor and the recipient by asking them
to give appropriate evidence of their
vocation and income for the previous
three financial years and any gross
disparity between the status of the two
must be evaluated in the backdrop of
the objective of preventing commercial
dealing;
(vii) ensure that the donor is not a drug
addict;
(viii) ensure that the near relative or if near
relative is not available, any adult
person related to donor by blood or
marriage of the proposed unrelated
donor is interviewed regarding
awareness about his or her intention to
donate an organ or tissue, the
authenticity of the link between the
donor and the recipient, and the
reasons for donation, and any strong
15views or disagreement or objection of
such kin shall also be recorded and
taken note of.”
21. In the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that:
“12. Where the donor is not “near relative” as
defined under the Act the situation is covered by
sub-section (3) of Section 9. As Form 1 in terms of
Rule 3 itself shows, the same has to be filed in both
the cases where the donor is a near relative and
where he is not, so far as the recipient is
concerned. In case the donor is not a near relative
the requirement is that he must establish that
removal of the organ was being authorised for
transplantation into the body of the recipient
because of affection or attachment or for any
special reasons to make donation of his organ. As
the purpose of enactment of the statute itself
shows, there cannot be any commercial element
involved in the donation. The object of the statute is
crystal clear that it intends to prevent commercial
dealings in human organs. The Authorisation
Committee is, therefore, required to satisfy that the
real purpose of the donor authorising removal of the
organ is by reason of affection or attachment
towards the recipient or for any other special
reason. Such special reasons can by no stretch of
imagination encompass commercial elements.
Above being the intent, the inevitable conclusion is
that the Authorisation Committee of the State to
which the donor and the donee belong have to take
the exercise to find out whether approval is to be
accorded. Such Committee shall be in a better
position to ascertain the true intent and the
purpose for the authorisation to remove the organ
and whether any commercial element is involved or
not. They would be in a better position to lift the
veil of projected affection or attachment and the so-
called special reasons and focus on the true intent.
The burden is on the applicants to establish the
real intent by placing relevant materials for
consideration of the Authorisation Committee.
Whether there exists any affection or attachment or
special reason is within the special knowledge of
the applicants, and a heavy burden lies on them to
16establish it. Several relevant factors like
relationship if any (need not be near relationship
for which different considerations have been
provided for), period of acquaintance, degree of
association, reciprocity of feelings, gratitude and
similar human factors and bonds can throw light
on the issue. It is always open to the Authorisation
Committee considering the application to seek
information/materials from the Authorisation
Committees of other States/State Governments, as
the case may be for effective decision in the matter.
In case any State is not covered by the operation of
the Act or the Rules, the operative executive
instructions/government orders will hold the field.
As the object is to find out the true intent behind
the donor’s willingness to donate the organ, it
would not be in line with the legislative intent to
require the Authorisation Committee of the State
where the recipient is undergoing medical
treatment to decide the issue whether approval is
to be accorded. Form 1 in terms requires the
applicants to indicate the residential details. This
indication is required to prima facie determine as to
which is the appropriate Authorisation Committee.
In the instant case, therefore, it was the
Authorisation Committee of the State of Punjab
which is required to examine the claim of the
petitioners.”
22. In the present case, the donor has executed an affidavit before the
Learned 1st Class Judicial Magistrate and the verification committee
has also examined the donor. The police have also submitted a report.
On consideration of all, the verification committee has come to the
conclusion that commercial transaction between the donor and
recipient is not established. The verification committee has not
submitted report preparing as per the statement made by the donor at
the time of examination of the donor. The donor in her statement
categorically stated that she is the follower of Shri Premanand Maharaj
and she inspired with Maharaj and she want to help someone. She has
17
also stated that though there is no documentary evidence to prove
relationship but the husband of the donor used to work as driver of the
recipient and they also used to visit her home including at the time of
“Griha Prabesh”.
23. The Verification Committee has also not considered the income of the
donor and her guardian. During examination of the donor by the
verification committee, she has stated that they are having two storied
building and other sources of income but the same has not been
recorded by the verification committee. In the affidavit, the donor has
stated that she is having the income of Rs. 1,20,000/- approximately
but the same has not been considered by the committee.
24. In the case of V. Periasamy (supra), the Madras High Court has held
that:
“15. A careful reading of the above report
dated 13.6.2025 would show that the donor was
working under the petitioner and that their family
became close to the family of the petitioner.
Therefore, it was claimed that they are family
friends. However, the third respondent has given a
finding to the effect that no documents have been
filed to establish that the family of the donor and
the family of the recipient namely the petitioner are
family friends. The third respondent is expecting
the petitioner to prove the negative.
16. It is incomprehensible as to how the
family friends can establish their relationship
through documents. Emotion plays a part in a
relationship involving friends and it is not
determined through documentation. Hence, the
very basis, on which, the report has been given by
the third respondent, lacks sound reasoning.
18
17. It is also seen from the records that all the
other relevant forms have been filed along with the
certificate and the only ground that has been put
against the petitioner is that the third respondent
has come to the conclusion that the donor and the
recipient did not establish through the documents
that they are family friends. The decision taken by
the first respondent – Committee purely on the
basis of the report of the third respondent –
Committee does not satisfy the mandatory
requirements under Rule 23 of the Rules. There is
no independent application of mind and the
decision taken by the first respondent – Committee
suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the
impugned order.”
25. In the case of Sudha Mathesan (supra), the Madras High Court held
that:
“17. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the
applicants. They can only assert that there is no
commercial dealing. They cannot be called upon to
prove the negative. Rule 17 provides for scrutiny of
application. In case of doubt, explanation can be
sought from the applicants and there can also be
verification done through the officials of the
Government. Too much of burden cannot be laid on
the shoulders of the applicants. Unless there is
definite material to establish that there are
financial dealings involving the parties, permission
ought not to be withheld or rejected. If the donor
states that out of love and affection, he/she is
making the donation, in the absence of any credible
reason, the averment should not be doubted. The
Government must come out with definite guidelines
in this regard. Otherwise, the issue will be left to
the arbitrary discretion of the Authorisation
Committee. If the recipient is well placed and
connected, the decision of the committee will swing
in his favour. If the recipient is not all that
influential, by passing a template order, permission
can be rejected. One must take note of the fact that
parliament never intended to rule out donation by
non-near relatives. The parliamentary intent ought
not to be frustrated by adopting a rigid approach.
One need not take a cynical view that a non-near
19relative will not donate out of altruistic
considerations.”
26. In the present case, admittedly there is no commercial transaction
between the donor and the recipient. The only issue is that the donor is
not a near relative. The donor is agreeable to donate her kidney to the
recipient. As per affidavit, executed before the Learned 1 st Class
Judicial Magistrate out of compassion, the donor is agreeable without
any pressure or financial consideration, solely to save a needy person
she is donating her kidney. It is also the case of the donor that due to
love and affection and on humanitarian ground, she is ready to donate
her kidney to the recipient. The verification committee has not
considered all the documents submitted by the donor and has also not
considered the statement made by her during her examination by the
verification committee.
27. This Court finds that the verification committee has not considered the
statement of the donor properly, affidavit executed by the donor before
the Learned 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, the reasons for which the
donor is ready to donate her organ to the recipient and income of the
donor.
28. In view of the above, the report of the verification committee dated 15 th
May, 2026 and the decision taken by the Authorization Committee for
not recommending the proposal of the donor are set aside and quashed.
The Authorization Committee is directed to reconsider the statement of
the donor, her father, the police report and to take fresh decision within
20
a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this
judgment and to communicate the same to the petitioner immediately.
29. WPA No. 14608 of 2026 is allowed.
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the
Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
