The Supreme Court on 13 March 2026 rejected a writ petition that sought to make NAT compulsory in all blood banks across India. The bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that the matter involves specialised medical technology and fiscal implications beyond judicial purview. Key Developments The Court noted that NAT is costlier, and mandating it would impose an additional financial burden on State health budgets. It clarified that the issue does not require interpretation of any existing statute, thus not warranting judicial intervention. The petitioners, the Sarvesham Mangalam Foundation, were permitted to approach the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for policy‑level consideration. Current practice limits ELISA testing in most blood banks, with NAT presently confined to Delhi government hospitals. Important Facts The petitioner argued that NAT can identify infections that ELISA may miss, thereby enhancing blood safety. However, the Court emphasized that the decision to adopt such technology involves cost‑benefit analysis, infrastructure readiness, and budgetary allocations—matters best addressed by the executive and legislature. Financial implications are significant: implementing <span class="k