Overview The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to make NAT compulsory for blood banks. The petition, filed by the Sarvesham Mangalam Foundation , argued that NAT can detect infections such as HIV , HBV and HCV . The Court, however, emphasized the financial burden on states and the need for policy‑level deliberation. Key Developments The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that mandating NAT is a policy decision, not a matter of statutory interpretation. The Court noted that NAT is costlier than the existing ELISA method, and imposing it could strain state finances. Petitioner was directed to make a representation before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for a policy review. Currently, NAT is limited to select government hospitals in Delhi, indicating uneven implementation across the country. Important Facts • NAT can identify infections earlier than ELISA , reducing the window period for HIV, HBV and HCV. • The petitioner highlighted that NAT is presently employed only in Delhi’s government hospitals, not in private or other public facilities. • The Court stressed that the decision to adopt new medical technology involves specialised knowledge and fiscal implications best handled by the executive. UPSC Relevance • Judicial Review & Policy Making (GS2) : The case illustrates the limits of judicial intervention in technical policy matters, reinforcing the principle of separation of powers. • Health Infrastructure & Technology (GS3) : Understanding NAT versus ELISA helps aspirants grasp advances in blood safety, a recurring topic in health‑related questions. • Fiscal Federalism (GS3) : The Court’s concern about the financial burden on states underscores the importance of evaluating cost‑effectiveness before nationwide mandates. • Role of NGOs (GS4) : The petition by a civil‑society foundation demonstrates how NGOs can influence health policy through legal avenues. Way Forward 1. The MoHFW should conduct a cost‑benefit analysis of scaling NAT across blood banks, considering regional disparities. 2. States may be encouraged to adopt a phased implementation, starting with high‑risk zones, while the central government could subsidise equipment and training. 3. Parallel strengthening of existing ELISA infrastructure can ensure continuity of safe blood supply during transition. 4. Continuous monitoring and data collection on infection rates post‑NAT adoption will inform future policy revisions.