Overview
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the 2017 blood‑donor guidelines. The Union Government, through the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, reiterated that the ban on donations by LGBTQ+ persons and female sex workers is essential for public health.
Key Developments
- The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipula Pancholi declined to overturn the ban, emphasizing even a 1% infection risk is unacceptable for the poor who rely on free blood.
- Experts consulted after the Court’s earlier direction reaffirmed that diluting the ban could be "injurious to recipients".
- Petitioners argued the ban violates equality, dignity and life rights and cited reforms in the US, UK and Canada that now allow gay men to donate.
- The Centre’s 2023 affidavit, filed in the Thangjam Santa Singh case, claimed scientific evidence links the excluded groups to higher HIV, Hepatitis B/C risk.
- Counsel suggested mandatory NAT testing could mitigate risks.
Important Facts
1. The 2017 guidelines, issued by the NBTC and the NACO, categorize transgender persons, gay men and female sex workers as high‑risk for HIV/AIDS (Clauses 12 & 51).
2. The Court highlighted that millions of poor patients depend on free blood supplies; any perceived risk could jeopardize this essential service.
3. Petitioners emphasized that all donated blood undergoes HIV screening, including NAT, and that risky behaviour, not identity, should be the criterion.
Exam Relevance
• Public Health Policy: Understanding how scientific evidence, epidemiology and constitutional rights intersect in health‑related regulations (GS3).
• Fundamental Rights: The case tests the balance between the right to equality (Article 14) and the State’s duty to protect public health (Article 21) (GS2).
• Judicial Review: Illustrates the Supreme Court’s approach to “luxury litigation” and deference to executive expertise in technical domains (GS2).
• Social Inclusion: Highlights the status of LGBTQ+ and sex‑worker communities in policy discourse, relevant for ethics and social justice (GS4).
Way Forward
- Encourage the Centre to adopt risk‑based screening (e.g., detailed behavioural questionnaire) rather than categorical bans.
- Mandate universal NAT testing for all donations to allay safety concerns.
- Launch public awareness campaigns on safe sexual practices and donor eligibility, aligning with international best practices.
- Review and possibly amend medical curricula to sensitize future health professionals about non‑discriminatory donor policies.
These steps could reconcile public health imperatives with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.